4.4 Article

Lowering Reduction Temperature of Iron Ore and Carbon Composite by Using Ores with High Combined Water Content

期刊

ISIJ INTERNATIONAL
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 1686-1693

出版社

IRON STEEL INST JAPAN KEIDANREN KAIKAN
DOI: 10.2355/isijinternational.49.1686

关键词

ironmaking; iron ore-coal composite; reduction degree; combined water

资金

  1. NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization)
  2. Iron and Steel Institute of Japan
  3. Japan Society for Promotion of Science [20246111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The steel industry is facing two difficult and urgent tasks to reduce CO(2) emissions and to use low-grade iron resources effectively. The utilization of an iron ore-carbon composite is one of the promising methods to solve the former. The latter is concerning to goethite ores such as Australian Marra Mamba and pisolite ores, which contain high concentration of combined water. In this study, the effect of combined water on the reduction behavior of the iron ore-coal composites at elevating temperature was examined under inert gas flow. Below 1 200 K, the reduction of iron oxide in Marra Mamba ore-coal and pisolite ore-coal composites proceeded faster than that in hematite ore-coal composite. It can be attributed to the larger specific surface area of the ores after decomposition of the combined water. Metallic iron also formed at lower temperature in the composites containing Marra Mamba and pisolite ores. The generation rate of CO gas from these composites showed the maximum value at approximately 1 170 K; however, that from the hematite-coal composite gave no peak, because formed metallic iron could act as a catalyst for the gasification of carbon. These results indicate that the reduction of ores with high combined water concentration can proceed at lower temperature. Above 1 373 K, however, the reduction rate of these ores in the composite significantly decreased due to a drastic decrease in the specific surface area of the ores and the formation of slag.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据