Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Thermal stress analysis and structural
A new approach for the determination of thermal optimization of ladle nozzle based on finite
element simulation
shock resistance of refractories Zichao Rong, Jianhong Yi, Fengxian Li et
al.

- The Effect of Jupiter's Formation on the

To cite this article: B Nespor et al 2022 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2341 012006 Distribution of Refractory Elements and
Inclusions in Meteorites
Steven J. Desch, Anusha Kalyaan and
Conel M. O’D. Alexander

- Depletion of Moderately Volatile Elements

View the article online for updates and enhancements. by Open-system Loss in the Early Solar
Nebula
Debanjan Sengupta, Paul R. Estrada,
Jeffrey N. Cuzzi et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 141.76.179.10 on 19/09/2023 at 15:45

ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

A new approach for the determination of thermal shock

resistance of refractories

B Nespor1, I Chromkova1, H Szklorzova1, V Prachar1, O Svitak1, L Stanek1

and M Nejedlik1
1
Research Institute for Building Materials, Hněvkovského 65, Brno 61700,
Czech Republic

E-mail: nespor@vush.cz, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1878-5788

Abstract. The life cycle of refractory materials is affected by a variety of factors. Depending
on the type of industrial application, they must be resistant to extreme temperatures, mechanical
loads, chemical corrosion and large temperature changes when in contact with molten metal and
slag. Correct estimation of durability is important in the choice of material and for determining
the service life of individual parts of the structure. Together with the expected maintenance
cycles, this influences the choice of material for optimum structural design. In practice,
refractories are very often subject to large temperature variations and thermal cycling. Thermal
shock is thus a predominant factor that shortens the service life of monolithic refractory products.
Therefore, the main objective of refractory manufacturers is to research and develop refractories
with higher resistance to thermal shock and to analyse, compare and evaluate them effectively.
This paper deals with the issue of testing the resistance of refractory materials, respectively
analysis and comparison of standard and new test methods for accelerated thermal shock
resistance testing.

1. Introduction
Refractories have an indispensable place in all industries where high temperatures are required.
These non-metallic polycrystalline materials are mainly produced on the basis of mixed oxides and their
compounds. Their chemical and physical properties allow them to be used in a high-temperature
environment. A condition for fulfilling this basic requirement is a high melting point and thermodynamic
stability at very high temperatures, usually above 1000°C. Refractories can resist temperatures above
1500°C and highly refractory materials more than 1800°C [1–5]. They are indispensable
in the metallurgical, steel, glass, cement and ceramic industries. Refractories are suitable construction
materials for thermal aggregates because they resist high temperatures, melt action, corrosive gases
and solid abrasion. Sometimes they have a thermal insulation function. Refractory products generally
have a sufficiently high resistance to thermal shock. Mechanical stability and corrosion resistance
at high temperatures are required for furnace linings and melting pots. Insulating ability is required for
the outer surfaces of thermal aggregates.
In recent years, the share of unshaped refractories has been increasing and nowadays they account
for more than 50% of the total refractory production. Refractories have gradually replaced refractory
bricks and shaped materials for their higher use value and easier installation [6]. Their advantages
include forming, which is carried out directly during the application of the material. When they are used,

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

weak points in the lining such as joints, etc. are minimized. Their greatest advantage is energy saving,
where the firing of the product is not required in the plant but occurs when the heat unit is commissioned.
Unshaped refractory products are developing very intensively. With the continuous expansion
of the range of refractory concrete, ever higher technical demands are being placed on their composition,
the technology of their creation, and their commissioning. Modern steelmaking technologies require
increasing quality lining materials that guarantee low specific consumption and also quality steel free
of impurities and inclusions from the lining. These demanding operating conditions pose a number
of challenges to the refractory manufacturer, which must be addressed in order to achieve reliability
and sufficient service life, not only inside the unit but also in the external parts, where the steel
is processed at extreme temperatures and there is contact between the refractory and molten metal, slag
and large temperature changes [7].
Refractory materials are often subjected to severe temperature fluctuations. As it always takes time
for the temperatures to equilibrate, temperature gradients are created within the material.
These temperature differences cause differential thermal expansion, which leads to mechanical stresses
throughout the volume of the exposed material. If these stresses exceed the load-bearing capacity
of the material, cracks form. The sensitivity of refractory material to temperature change is one of its
main characteristics. Rapid cooling has a major influence on the formation of cracks. During this
cooling, the temperature drops towards the centre due to the cooler layers on the surface of the material
in contact with the cooler surroundings. The outer surface begins to shrink and considerable tensile
stresses occur. Refractory concrete has little resistance to tensile stresses, which can lead to subsequent
cracking. In the opposite process, such as rapid heating, the outer shell is at a higher temperature than
the inner part and the material is subjected to compressive stresses. Thus, large shear stresses occur
in the outer layers, which causes classic peeling of the layers and sometimes even separation of most
of the material [8–16]. Thermal shock is thus a predominant factor that shortens the service life
of monolithic refractory products. Therefore, the main objective of refractory manufacturers is
to research and develop refractories with higher resistance to thermal shock and to analyse, compare and
evaluate them effectively.
A wide range of test methods are now available for accelerated testing of the resistance of refractories
to high temperatures. However, some domestic manufacturers of refractory products still determine
the resistance to thermal shock using the now relatively old German DIN 51068-1. However, this test is
inconclusive, as it ignores the actual operating conditions and heat transfer through the air. Moreover,
this method is primarily intended for shaped refractories. Therefore, the research focused on the practical
development and comparison of standard and new test methods for accelerated thermal shock resistance
testing of monolithic refractory concrete products. The present paper summarizes the findings from
testing different types of refractory concrete. The pros and cons of each test method and the potential
for their use are described in more detail.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials
Four variants of regular cement castables (RCC) were designed for initial testing. The variants differed
in the type of aluminous cement used. The test refractories were bonded with REFCON+, SECAR 71,
CA-14 W or CA-270 aluminate cement. The aggregate consisted of coarse and fine fractions of tabular
alumina. The micro filler consisted of calcined alumina. The RCC samples were supplemented with
commercial corundum mixed with silicon carbide.
For the practical development of a test method for accelerated high-temperature resistance tests, four
variants of ultra-low cement castables (ULCC) and no cement castable (NCC) were prepared,
see table 1. The ULCC mixes were bonded with Almatis CA-270 high alumina cement (2.5%) and
the NCC mix with Alphabond 300 hydratable alumina binder (3%). The aggregate consisted of coarse
(55–70%) and fine fractions (7–17%) of Almatis T60/64 tabular alumina. In ULCC formulations S
and A, the coarse fraction of the aggregate (55%) was supplemented with aluminate spinel or andalusite

2
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

(20%). Almatis CTC 50 micro filler in the form of reactive alumina (9%) was supplemented (3%)
with Elkem 971 microsilica in ULCC mixtures M and R, as well as RON waste metakaolin dust
from České lupkové závody, a.s. In order to achieve sufficient flowability and the necessary properties
of the fresh mixture, an alumina-based dispersing agent (0.7%) was used.
Table 1. The raw material formulations of the castables.
Prescription S A M R N
Tabular alumina T60/T64 (0.2–6 mm) + + + + +
Alumina-rich Spinel AR 78 (0–1 mm) +
High-alumina andalusite aggregates Kerphalite KF (0.09v0.355 mm) +
Tabular alumina T60/T64 (<45 μm) + + + + +
Tabular alumina T60/T64 (<20 μm) +
Reactive alumina CTC 50 (<7.5 µm) + + + + +
Microsilica Elkem Grade 971 U (<45 μm) + + +
Waste metakaolin dust RON (<80/21 µm) +
Dispersing alumina M-ADS1/M-ADW1 + + + + +
High alumina cement CA-270 + + + +
Hydratable alumina binder Alphabond 300 +

2.2. Sample preparation

The preparation of the test specimens was carried out according to EN ISO 1927-5. The dry components
were first mixed for 3 minutes. Tap water was used for mixing. The batch was mixed for 4–6 minutes.
After the consistency was determined by the cone vibration method, the refractories were immediately
vibrationally shaped. Forming was provided by a VSB-70 duo REM high-frequency vibrating table with
electromagnetic mould clamping. The mixtures were compacted by vibration at a frequency of 35 Hz
for 1 minute. See table 2 for the number and size of test bodies. After the moulding was completed,
the moulds with the test specimens were placed in an airtight plastic bag. The treatment temperature was
20.5°C. After storage for 24 hours, the test pieces were removed from the mould and stored for a further
24 hours under the same conditions.
After treatment, the test specimens were dried in an oven for at least 16 hours at 105 ± 5°C to constant
weight. The test specimens were kept at room temperature in a desiccator to prevent rewetting. Testing
of the unfired material was carried out immediately after drying and cooling.
The firing at 950°C (only for tests of basic physical properties) and 1500°C was carried out
in an oxidizing atmosphere. After removal from the drying oven and cooling, the test pieces were placed
horizontally in the firing kiln on the same surface, which was also bottom side down during preparation,
so that they were protected from the direct effect of radiation in the electric kiln. The test pieces were
spaced at least 20 mm apart. The temperature rises from room temperature to 600°C was 3.5°C/min.
Above 600°C up to 1250°C, the temperature rise was 7.5°C/min (for process firing at 950°C,
the temperature rise was identical up to 50°C below firing temperature). Above 1250°C up to 50°C
below firing temperature 3.5°C/min. The last 50°C is then 1.5°C/min. The firing temperature was
maintained for 5 hours (for body size of 230 × 64 × 54 mm) or 3 hours (for alternative sizes), after which
the kiln was switched off and cooled spontaneously.

2.3. Methods
The basic classification of monolithic unshaped refractory products is defined in EN ISO 1927-1.
The cone vibration method determined the consistency of fresh refractory mixes during production
according to EN ISO 1927-4. At the same time, the stability of the mixes (segregation, bleeding) was

3
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

monitored. After treatment, drying and technological firing, the basic physical properties of the
refractory concrete samples were tested according to EN ISO 1927-6.
For practical research and development of test methods for accelerated testing of the resistance
of monolithic refractory concrete to high temperatures, both standard and non-standard tests were
selected using relatively simple methods for applying thermal shock. The test specimens were rapidly
cooled with water or compressed air and gradually cooled with ambient air or a water-cooled plate.
See table 2 for a summary of the test methods applied, their expression of resistance to sudden
temperature changes, the method of cooling, and the number and size of test specimens.
Table 2. The raw material formulations of the castables.

EN 993-11 ASTM Modified EN 993-11

Koltermann test DIN 51068-1
method B C 1171–96 Koltermann test method A
resistance to sudden temperature changes is
resistance to sudden temperature changes
expressed in terms of the number of cooling
(after 5 cooling periods) is expressed in terms of
cycles the test body has withstood before failure
residual sound velocity / flexural strength
(max. 30)
cooling by a cooling by a
rapid cooling by cooling by rapid cooling by water
water-cooled water-cooled
airflow ambient air airflow quenching
plate plate
2 reference + 4 reference + 2 reference +
1 cycled 1 cycled 1 cycled
2 cycled 4 cycled 2 cycled
specimen specimen specimen
specimens specimens specimens
230×64×54 mm 152×25×25 mm 200×35×35 mm 114×64×54 mm 200×35×35 mm cylinder
alt. dimension 50/50 mm
114×64×54 mm
114×50×50 mm
alt. dimension 124×25×25 mm

The test apparatus for monitoring the resistance of refractory materials to high temperatures consisted
of several instruments and devices. Drying (to constant weight at 110°C) and preheating (4 h at 250 to
300°C) of the test bodies were carried out in a BRM Verticell laboratory forced-air dryer with
a temperature range of 10°C above ambient temperature to 250/300°C. Heating was carried out
in a muffle laboratory kiln LAC LMH 07/12 (with an optimum operating temperature range of 700 to
1150°C) heated to 950°C until uniformly heated. For higher temperatures, the LAC VP20-17 furnace,
specially designed for high-temperature applications with an operating temperature range of 1200 to
1600°C (max 1700°C), was used.
According to EN ISO 1927-8 for non-formable refractory products, the resistance to sudden
temperature changes of pre-fired test specimens is determined according to EN ISO 993-11 method B.
A mobile ABAC compressor with a pressure regulator and pressure gauges was used for the rapid
cooling of the specimens with airflow. The test body was removed from the kiln using thermally
insulated iron tongs and placed with the longest wall on a steel plate (400 × 250 × 20 mm) using stop
pins so that the nozzle of the cooling device was directed towards the centre of the top surface.
Depending on the size of the test body, the stop/fixing pins are arranged so that the airflow during
cooling is directed at the intersection of the diagonals of the test body. The distance between the nozzle
(8 mm diameter) of the blowing device and the test piece was 100 mm. The test piece was blown with
compressed air for five minutes. The mouth pressure was constant and equal to 0.1 MPa ± 0.01 MPa.
The same area of the test body was always inflated. See figure 1 for the arrangement of the blowing
device.

4
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

Figure 1. Equipment arrangement for rapid air cooling according to EN 993-11.

Resistance to sudden changes in temperature (after five cooling periods) is expressed as percent
of residual sound velocity, SVres, and % residual flexural strength, MORres, where the distance between
supports is 180 mm, or 100 mm for alternative dimensions:
𝑀𝑂𝑅𝑐𝑦𝑐
𝑀𝑂𝑅𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 𝑀𝑂𝑅
× 100 (1)
SVcyc
SVres = SV
× 100 (2)
Ultrasonic sound velocity measurements were performed with a Tico apparatus. For the measurement
of flexural strength according to EN 993-6, the TIRA test 2710 tear tester was used.
In comparative method A (for shaped products) of the same standard, the test specimen
(after cooling) was subjected to bending stress of (0.3 ± 0.05) MPa, continuously and without shock.
The distance between the edges was 100 mm. The compression and support edges had a radius of 5 mm.
The test is terminated if the test piece breaks. If the test piece withstands the load, it is placed back in the
kiln heated to 950°C, and the same cycle is repeated. The test shall be continued until the test piece
breaks under bending stress or breaks into two or more pieces on cooling. The test shall be terminated
when the test specimen has withstood more than 30 rapid cooling periods.
According to the American standard ASTM C 1171-96, half of the test specimens were dried and
preheated in the same way as in procedure EN ISO 993-11. Four beams were heated simultaneously
to 1200°C for 15 min and then cooled for 15 min using ambient air only, see figure 2. The test set was
again placed in the kiln heated to 1200°C for 15 minutes and the same cycle was repeated.

Figure 2. Ambient air cooling of specimens according to ASTM C 1171-96.

Resistance against sudden temperature changes is usually expressed as a percentage loss of flexural
strength and sound speed after five cooling of the test specimens. However, for ease of comparison,

5
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

the resistance expressed as a percentage of both residual speed of sound and bending strength was
the same as in the European standard. The flexural tensile strength of the (un)loaded specimens was
determined using a 3-point bending test, where the distance of the supports is 127 mm, or 100 mm for
the alternative dimension 124 × 25 × 25 mm, and the loading rate is 1.27 mm/min. The speed velocity
was determined parallel to its longitudinal axis.
A water-cooled plate with dimensions 300 × 150 × 50 mm was fabricated to test the non-standard
test. The cooling plate was made of stainless steel. The method-defined copper plate was substituted
with stainless steel due to concerns about material durability because of the high sample temperatures
up to 1350°C. The cooling water inlet/outlet was located at the lowest/highest point on opposite
sidewalls. Following the Koltermann method, one test body was dried, preheated and heated to 1350°C
as standard, with a 15-minute dwell at this temperature followed by a five-minute placement of the body
on a water-cooled plate. The specimen was again placed in the oven heated to 1350°C for 15 minutes
and the same cycle was repeated. The thermal shock resistance of the body is expressed in terms
of the number of temperature cycles it can withstand without failure.
For further research, development and comparison of refractory materials and methods,
the Koltermann test was further adapted for quantitative measurements. Smaller test specimens
(25 × 25 × 152 mm) were heated to 1350°C for 15 minutes, then placed and cooled by a water-cooled
plate for 15 minutes. Resistance to sudden temperature changes (after five cooling periods) was
expressed as a percentage of the residual speed of sound and residual flexural tensile strength (as in the
European standard), where the support spacing is 100 mm and the loading rate is 1.27 mm/min
(see American standard).

Figure 3. Thermal shocking of specimens on a water-cooled stainless steel plate according to the
modified Koletermann test.

For comparison, the German standard DIN 51068-1 was also tested, which differs in the use of water
cooling of cylindrical test specimens. The 50/50 mm cylindrical test specimens were preheated and dried
in a kiln at 110°C for 30 minutes, then placed in an oven preheated to 950°C for 15 minutes,
then removed and immersed in running cold water at 20°C for 3 minutes. The resistance to thermal
shock is expressed in terms of the number of cycles (max. 30) that the test piece can withstand without
breaking (breaking into two or more large fragments).

3. Results and discussions

In the initial phase, the RCC refractory concrete specimens were tested. The overall permanent length
change after firing was very low for all samples. The maximum shrinkage was 0.5%. The total
permanent length changes were <1.5% and all specimens (letters B/C/D indicate the firing temperature
of 1000/1250/1500°C) thus met the classification temperatures according to EN ISO 1927-1 (depending
on the firing temperature). Cracks were visible on all cylindrical samples after water quenching.
The RCC 1D and RCC 3D specimens (with Secar 71 and CA-270 high aluminate binders) fired
at 1500°C did not last 30 cycles and broke into two pieces. The other specimens passed the shock loading
successfully.

6
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

Figure 4. RCC samples of refractory concrete after 30 cycles of water quenching.

Water quenching represents a significant thermal shock load on the specimens. This method
is relatively easy to evaluate. The number, length and orientation of macrocracks can be monitored after
each cycle. However, it is not entirely suitable for testing lower quality unshaped refractory products,
especially with normal and medium cement content. Moreover, it does not provide quantitative values
for comparison with other materials and neglects realistic operating conditions and heat transfer
through air.
In the following step, comparative tests of the resistance of commercial corundum refractory concrete
fittings and previously manufactured conventional RCC refractory concrete to sudden temperature
changes were carried out according to ČSN EN ISO 993-11 (method B – intended for non-formed
products). Reference RCC specimens (technological firing 1000°C) were prepared in the standard size
of half a normal brick, i.e. 230 × 64 × 54 mm. The other RCC specimens (1250 and 1500°C firing
technologies) were cut to one quarter of a standard brick, i.e. 114×64×54 mm, and the commercial
specimens to the nearest possible cut of 114 × 50 × 50 mm. The dimensions of these test specimens
were adjusted as the commercial specimens did not reach the half-brick size.
The uncooled RCC specimens (1500°C firing) and dimensionally comparable commercial bricks
have similar bending strengths of about ±17 MPa, except for 1800/80 which has a strength of 38.7 MPa.
However, the air-cooled RCC samples have a significantly lower residual flexural strength
of approximately 30% compared to commercial products. The 1800/80 specimen has a relatively lower
residual strength of 73% compared to the other commercial refractory concrete products but still
achieves twice the flexural strength of approximately 28 MPa.

Figure 5. Thermal shock resistance of commercial bricks and RCC.

7
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

In the next phase, five selected test methods were carried out on ULCC sample M. For the application
of thermal shock, rapid compressed cooling, gradual cooling with ambient air and water-cooled plates
were used. According to the established methodology, the European Standard Method B and
the modified Koltermann test represented a significant thermal shock loading on the specimens,
see figure 6. The relatively higher residual flexural strength of the modified Koltermann test was most
likely due to uneven cooling over the entire surface of the specimens, as the water-cooled stainless steel
plate buckled during thermal shock.

Figure 6. Comparison of resistance against temperature shock of samples with standard and
alternative dimensions.

The ambient air cooling only, used in the American standard, was less demanding and the specimens
achieved twice the residual strength values as the above methods. Both Method A of the European
Standard and the standard Koltermann test are not well suited for research, development and comparison
of refractory products and the methods themselves. The tested specimens were unbroken after a defined
number of cycles. It was not possible to determine which sample had the higher thermal shock resistance.
The alternative dimension of the specimens (124 × 25 × 25 mm) did not significantly affect the test
results. The test specimens showed similar values of residual sound velocity and flexural strength.
For practical reasons, the use of smaller specimens (200 × 35 × 35 or 124 × 25 × 25 mm) would be
preferable. Thus, suitable test pieces can be cut from commercial bricks (200 × 100 × 50 mm) for
the shock tests. Furthermore, costly refractory raw materials will be saved in the preparation
of the developed refractory concrete specimens. At the same time, a larger number of specimens can be
cycled under identical conditions.
In the last phase, ultra-low-cement refractories with microfiller in the form of microsilica (M), RON
waste dust (R), as well as refractories with coarse aggregate fraction in the form of aluminate spinel (S)
and especially andalusite (A), as well as cementless refractories (N) were tested. Prior to exposing the
samples to thermal shocks, the damage to the structure was monitored and the overall permanent length
changes after firing were also evaluated. The changes in volume or damage caused by technological
firing were evaluated by optical observation. No cracks were observed in any of the samples after firing
at 950°C. When fired at 1500°C, only the cementless (N) and ultrafine cement specimens (A) with
a coarse fraction of the aggregates in the form of andalusite passed. No cracks were observed on these
two specimens. Tiny cracks were observed on specimen (S), isolated cracks on specimen (M) and visible
and large macrocracks on specimen (R).
The optical observation outputs correspond to the measured permanent changes in length after firing.
Samples A and N achieve a total permanent change in length after firing of up to -0.2%. Other refractory
concretes with microsilica (M), waste slurry (R), and spinel (S) show a change in length after firing

8
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

of approximately -0.5 to -0.8%. However, the total permanent length changes were <1.5% and
all samples met the classification temperatures of 1500°C according to EN ISO 1927-1.
The ultra-low-cement specimens A with a coarse aggregate fraction in the form of andalusite showed
the highest resistance to abrupt changes in temperature and residual flexural strength and sound velocity
(> 80%) after five rapid air-cooling periods (standard and alternative dimensions of the specimens).
The other formulations achieved average residual flexural strengths of 25–48%.
The comparative modification of the Koltermann test (modified) represents (after modification of the
water-cooled plate) a more significant thermal shock load on the specimens than Method B of the
European standard. After the necessary reinforcement of the stainless-steel plate (due to deformation),
uniform cooling was ensured over the entire surface of the specimen. The lowest residual strength
of specimen A in the non-standard test was probably due to careless handling of the specimens by the
laboratory staff or to the problematic production of relatively small specimens (124 × 25 × 25 mm).

Figure 7. Development of the residual bending strength and sound velocity after thermal shock.

The alternative dimension of the test specimens has no significant effect on the shock test results.
However, the resulting parameters of the 200 × 35 × 35 mm alternate dimension specimens are closer
to those of the normal dimension specimens than the smaller 124 × 25 × 25 mm specimens. The variance
of the deviations from the mean value is also lower for the normal dimension and the medium-sized
200 × 35 × 35 mm alternate dimension specimens. It can be concluded that both proposed methods
(including the dimensions of the test pieces) are suitable for the determination of resistance to sudden
temperature changes.

4. Conclusions
In this study, several variations of test methods for accelerated testing of thermal shock resistance
of refractories were experimentally verified. Both standard and non-standard tests and test methods were
compared. Rapid cooling by compressed air, gradual cooling by ambient air, and water-cooled plates
were used to apply thermal shock on the refractory test specimens. The suitability, speed, simplicity,
repeatability and effectiveness of the evaluation of these tests for monolithic refractory products were
assessed. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The relatively old but still commonly used, German standard test DIN 51068-1 for shaped
refractories represents a very significant loading of the specimens and is relatively easy to evaluate.
However, it is inconclusive as it ignores the actual operating conditions and heat transfer through air.

9
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

However, it is unsuitable for testing lower quality unshaped refractory products, especially with normal
and medium cement content. Moreover, it does not provide quantitative values for comparison with
other materials.
(2) Method A in the European standard and the standard Koltermann test are also not very suitable
for research, development and comparison of refractory products and methods. The tested samples were
not broken after a defined number of cycles. It was impossible to determine which sample had the higher
thermal shock resistance or to compare the different materials quantitatively.
(3) Simply cooling with ambient air, as used in the American Standard, puts significantly less thermal
shock on the samples than the methods mentioned below. In addition, compared to method B
of the European standard, the samples are heated to a higher temperature, thus increasing the cost
of the test procedure.
(4) The Modified Koletermann test represents a more significant thermal shock loading
of the samples than Method B in the European standard. Both methods are suitable for determining
resistance to sudden changes in temperature. The standard dimension of half a typical brick can be
advantageously reduced to the alternative dimension of 200×35×35 mm or 124×25×25 mm. However,
the variance of the deviations from the mean value is lower for the larger of the alternative dimensions.
The advantage is a higher number of simultaneously tested bodies and a reduced need for relatively
expensive refractory raw materials to produce and develop the prototype refractory concrete.
Commercial bricks of smaller dimensions can also be tested, from which the required alternative
dimension can be easily cut out.

Acknowledgements
This outcome has been achieved with the institutional support for the long-term development of research
organizations by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic.

References
[1] Kutzendörfer A 1992 Žárovzdorné materiály (Praha: VŠCHT)
[2] Staroň J and Tomšů F 1992 Žiaruvzdorné materiály (Bratislava: Alfa)
[3] Hanykýř V and Kutzendörfer J 2008 Technologie keramiky (Praha: Silikátový svaz)
[4] Hašková E 1983 Technologie skla a keramiky II (Liberec: VŠST v Liberci)
[5] Mátl D 2015 Effect of acidic influence on the refractory castable with different cement content.
(Diploma thesis) (Brno: Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Technology of Building Materials and Components)
[6] Schacht Ch 2004 Refractories Handbook (New York: Marcel Dekker)
[7] Novobilská M 2018 No-Cement Corundum Refractory Castables (Diploma thesis) (Brno: Brno
University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology of Building
Materials and Components)
[8] Koller A 1994 Structure and Properties of Ceramics (Amsterdam: Elsevier)
[9] Ulbricht J, Dudczig S, Tomšů F and Palčo Š 2012 Technological measures to improve the thermal
shock resistance of refractory materials. Refractories manual 2/2012 pp 103–6.
[10] Tomšů F and Palčo Š 2009 Žárovzdorné materiály, díl IV. Netvarové žárovzdorné materiály
[Refractory Materials. Part IV., Non-shaped Refractory Materials] (Praha: ČSVTS –
Silikátová společnost České republiky)
[11] Staroń J and Tomšů F 2000 Žiaruvzdorné materiály, výroba, vlastnosti a použitie
[Refractory materials, production, properties and usage] (Lubeník: SLOVMAG)
[12] Schulle W 1990 Feuerfeste Werkstoffe: Feuerfestkeramik – Eigenschaften, prüftechnische
Beurteilung Werkstofftypen (Leipzig: Deutsche Verlag für Grundstoff ind.)
[13] Mráz D 2017 Evaluation of resistance of refractory concretes with heterogeneous structure to
sudden thermal shocks Hutnické listy 2 pp 33–8
[14] Brochen E, Clasen S, Dahlem E and Dannert C 2016 Determination of the thermal shock
resistance of refractories Refractories WORLDFORUM 8 pp 79–85

10
ICBMPT-2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2341 (2022) 012006 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2341/1/012006

[15] Davis W R 1955 Measurement of Mechanical Strength of Refractory Materials by a Non-

Destructive Method (Research Paper No 39) (Stoke-On-Trent: Brit. Ceram. Res. Assn.)
[16] Semler C E 1981 Nondestructive ultrasonic evaluation of refractories Interceram 5 485–8

11