Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF DISSIMILAR
SECONDARY METALLURGY METHODS FOR
IMPROVING STEEL CLEANLINESS
by
APRIL PITTS-BAGGETT
LAURENTIU NASTAC, COMMITTEE CHAIR
MARK WEAVER
LUKE BREWER
CHARLES MONROE
RON O’MALLEY
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Metallurgical Engineering
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama
TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA
2017
1
Copyright April Pitts-Baggett 2017
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ABSTRACT
Due to a continual increasing industry demand for clean steels, a multi-depth sampling
approach was developed to gain a more detailed depiction of the reactions occurring in the ladle
throughout the Ladle Metallurgy Furnace (LMF) processing. This sampling technique allows for
the ability for samples to be reached at depths, which have not been able to be captured before, of
approximately 1.5 m below the slag layer. These samples were also taken in conjunction with
samples taken just under the slag layer as well as in between those samples. Additional samples
were also taken during the processing including multi-point slag sampling. The heats were divided
in to five key processing steps: Start of heat (S), after Alloying (A), after desulfurization/start of
pre-Rinse (R), prior to Ca treatment (C), and End of heat (E).
Sampling sets were collected to compare the effects of silicon, desulfurization rates, slag
emulsification, slag evolution and inclusion evolution. By gaining the ability to gather multiple
depths, it was determined that the slag emulsification has the ability to follow the flow pattern of
the ladle deeper into the ladle than previously seen in literature. Inclusion evolution has been
shown by numerous researchers; however, this study showed differences in the inclusion grouping
and distribution at the different depths of the ladle through Automated Feature Analysis (AFA).
Also, the inclusion path was seen to change depending on both the silicon content and the sulfur
content of the steel. This method was applied to develop a desulfurization model at Nucor Steel
Tuscaloosa, Inc. (NSTI). In addition to a desulfurization model, a calcium (Ca) model was also
developed. The Ca model was applied to target a finished inclusion region based on the conditions
up to the wire treatment. These conditions included time, silicon content, and sulfur concentration.
iii
Due to the inability of this model to handle every process variable, a new procedure was created
to provide a real time feedback via SparkDat © software installed in a ThermoFisher 4460
spectrometer.
iv
DEDICATION
To my Parents who have always encouraged me,
To my Granny and Uncle Smitty who always look over me,
And To my husband for being beside me.
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
LMF Ladle Metallurgy Furnace
‘S' Start of heat sampling time
‘A' After Alloys sampling time
‘R' After desulfurization/start of pre-rinse sampling time
‘C' Prior to Calcium treatment sampling time
‘E' End of heat sampling time
AFA Automated Feature Analysis
NSTI Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa, Inc.
BOS Basic Oxygen Steelmaking
EAF Electric Arc Furnace
MgO Magnesium Oxide
Al2O3 Alumina
CaAl Calcium- Aluminates
MgO-Al2O3 or MgO-TiO2 Spinel
MnS Manganese Sulfides
CaS Calcium Sulfides
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
B3 Slag Basicity
CaO Lime/Calcium Oxide
vi
SiO2 Silicon Dioxide
( ) Represents components in the slag layer
[ ] Represents components in the steel
FeO Iron Oxide
MnO Manganese Oxide
LS Sulfur distribution ratio
CS Sulfide capacity of the LMF slag
Ko Partition coefficient for oxygen
Ks Partition coefficient for sulfur
fs Activity coefficient of sulfur
Δ Change in
T Temperature
Λ Optical Basicity
%Seq Percentage of Sulfur in equilibrium
K3’ Partition coefficient for sulfur [Roy]
% Sf Final Sulfur percent in the steel
% Si Initial Sulfur percent in the steel
WM Weight of steel
WS Weight of slag
A Surface area of the slag/steel interface
ms Mass transfer coefficient
HCFeMn High Carbon Ferro-Manganese
MCFeMn Medium Carbon Ferro-Manganese
vii
FeMnN Ferro-Manganese with Nitrogen
FeNb Ferro-Niobium
FeB Ferro-Boron
FeP Ferro-Phosphorus
FeTi Ferro-Titanium
FeSi Ferro-Silicon
RSi Restricted Silicon grade
PDA-OES Pulse Discrimination Analysis by Optical Emission
Spectroscopy
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
IRSID Institut de Recherche de la Sidérurgie/ Iron and Steel
Research Institute
CFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
PkPA Pressure
ρslag Density of slag
g Gravity
hslag Slag thickness
ρsteel Density of steel
hsteel Steel depth
HMI Human Machine Interface
SO3 Sulfur oxide
XRD X-ray Diffraction
‘F’ Far side of ladle (when referring to sampling locations)
viii
rds Desulfurization rate
t Time
R2 R-squared value - a statistical value
OT Open Tap
MW Metal Weight
Al spec Aluminum specification
CalSil Calcium-Silicon Wire
CL Liquid concentration (Scheil equation)
C0 Initial concentration (Scheil equation)
fs Fraction solid (Scheil equation)
α Constant related to dendrite arm spacing
Ds Diffusion Coefficient
λ Arm spacing
Ω Constant that incorporates α and includes back diffusion
tf Time for solidification
∆G Gibbs Free Energy
HSLA High Strength Low Alloy
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am honored to have this opportunity to thank the many colleagues, friends, and faculty
members who have helped me throughout this research project. I am most indebted to NSTI for
granting me this opportunity to continue my educational progress. I could not have completed this
dissertation without my advisor, Dr. Laurentiu Nastac, as a university-industry collaboration
doctoral student. I would also like to thank all of my committee members: Mark Weaver, Luke
Brewer, Charles Monroe, and Ron O’Malley for their invaluable input, inspiring questions, and
support of both the dissertation and my academic career.
This research would not have been possible without the support of the LMF team, Nucor
management team, Dr. Eugene Pretorius, Bob Williams, Dr. Qiulin Yu, co-ops (Maggie Saylor
and Garret Finnen), and of course of my friends and family who never stopped encouraging me to
persist. I could not miss the opportunity to thank the LMF operators that were lucky enough to
work the days we ran trials. So many thanks to Tyler Waldrop, Jake Miller, and Chris Lyons! I
would also like to thank the many people who helped cover for me while I was in class or listened
to me when times were tough. Daniel Green, Justin Novotny, Jake Franks, Derrick Sawyer, and
Henry Przekora your patience and help was greatly treasured. I would also like to thank Michael
Mayhall and his electrical team for creating the ‘April’ button on the HMI to make these trials run
as smoothly as they did.
x
Also, I am also humbly grateful for the relationship with Heraeus Electronite on the
sampling tube design project. Paul Turner and Joseph Hallmark, words cannot express how much
I appreciate everything you did by taking the plunge on a crazy idea and help to make it work!
The constant support and love showed by my husband is valued beyond words. His ability
to stand beside me and encourage me when things got tough was incredible. I could not imagine
tackling this world with anyone else. Even though the words thank you is not enough, thank you
for continually being my rock.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank two of the most important people in my life –
my parents Terry and Catherine Pitts for giving me unconditional love and support throughout my
dissertation work, my career, and throughout my life. They have always pushed me to succeed,
and never let me say that I could not accomplish anything that I wanted. I reached for the stars
because of them, and I will always be eternally grateful.
xi
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ........................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xv
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 4
Importance of Slag .............................................................................................................. 4
Desulfurization and the Effects of Sulfur ........................................................................... 6
Inclusion Formation and Evolution .................................................................................. 10
Calcium Treatment............................................................................................................ 12
Stir Practices ..................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 16
Sampling Technique ............................................................................................. 16
Sample Evaluation using PDA-OES ..................................................................... 17
Modeling Methods and Techniques .................................................................................. 18
Thermodynamic and Mathematical Models ......................................................... 18
CFD Modeling ...................................................................................................... 20
xii
OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 25
EXPERIMENTAL AND MODELING METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 27
Experimental Approach .................................................................................................... 27
Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................. 31
Modeling Technique for Segregation of Mn in Argon Purged Sampler .......................... 33
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................... 36
Slag Evolution – Transient Slags ...................................................................................... 36
Sulfide Capacity and Predicting Final Sulfur ................................................................... 48
Process affects on desulfurization and model ................................................................... 56
EAF Slag Carryover .............................................................................................. 66
Inclusion Evolution ........................................................................................................... 70
Sulfur..................................................................................................................... 70
FeSi Effects ........................................................................................................... 77
Pre-rinse versus Post Rinse ................................................................................... 80
Robot samples versus multi-depth samples .......................................................... 84
Slag Emulisificaton ........................................................................................................... 90
Calcium Treatment............................................................................................................ 98
Manganese Micro-segregation in Sample ....................................................................... 105
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................... 110
CONTRIBUTION OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................................ 113
FUTURE WORK ........................................................................................................................ 115
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 116
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Total oxygen with specific alloy additions. [46] ............................................................ 11
Table 2: Sampling locations.......................................................................................................... 27
Table 3: Chemistry used for HSLA Steels. ................................................................................... 34
Table 4: Material Parameters used for the modeling conditions. [127] [128] .............................. 34
Table 5: Thermo-physical properties of HSLA steel. [127] [128] ................................................ 34
Table 6: Slags from RSI1 from the ‘S’ sampling time. ................................................................ 36
Table 7: Calculated XRF measurements error for elements of interest. ....................................... 37
Table 8: Slag Data from heat RSI4. .............................................................................................. 39
Table 9: Slag compositions for RSI3 SF, AF, RF, CF, and EF. ................................................... 40
Table 10: Slag compositions for SI3 A1, A2, A3, AF .................................................................. 41
Table 11: Ranking of heats analyzed for sulfur removal and capture. ......................................... 52
Table 12: Optical Basicity of slag components used. [40] ........................................................... 52
Table 13: Sulfur equilibrium and rate constant comparison between experimental and Fruehan. 54
Table 14: Comparison of actual %Sf to Turkdogan’s equation and Equation 18. ........................ 55
Table 15: Si-bearing heat data related to desulfurization rates. .................................................... 66
Table 16: EAF and LMF slag component comparison. ................................................................ 67
Table 17: Parameters used for deoxidation and slag calculations. ............................................... 69
Table 18: Al Consumption per heat. ............................................................................................. 80
Table 19: AFA data comparison of multi-depth versus Robot samples for processing times ‘R’,
‘C’, and ‘E’. (RSI3) ...................................................................................................................... 86
xiv
Table 20: AFA data comparison of multi-depth versus Robot samples for processing times ‘R’,
‘C’, and ‘E’. (SI3) ......................................................................................................................... 88
Table 21: Data for micro segregation calculations. [128]........................................................... 107
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Ca-Al phase diagram. ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Sulfide capacity versus optical basicity. [40] .................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Typical inclusion path throughout LMF Processing. [3] .............................................. 12
Figure 4: Schematic of stopper rod control. [73] .......................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Flow pattern for ladle with offset plugs used for argon bubbling. [120] ..................... 22
Figure 6: Probability of inclusion attachment using turbulent random motion. [120] ................. 22
Figure 7: Oxygen ppm and rate constant versus stir time. [120] .................................................. 23
Figure 8: The LMF hood design at Nucor Tuscaloosa, including sampling locations. [123] ...... 28
Figure 9: Cross sectional (a) and full view (b) of the multi-depth sampler .................................. 28
Figure 10: Stir lance arm used with sample tube attached............................................................ 30
Figure 11: Key process sampling locations. [124] ........................................................................ 31
Figure 12: Example Bruker S2 Ranger XRF spectrum analysis................................................... 32
Figure 13: Example ternaries depicting different modifications. [57] .......................................... 33
Figure 14: Images of the sample side-profile view (a) and top view (b). ..................................... 34
Figure 15: Chart of density vs temperature for bulk HSLA steel. [127] ...................................... 35
Figure 16: Slag evolution trends for heat RSI3.’S’- Start, ‘A’- Alloy, ‘R’- Pre-rinse, ‘C’- Ca
Treatment, ‘E’- End. ..................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 17: Slag evolution of heat RSI4 with non-ideal stir pattern. ............................................. 38
Figure 18: Stir pattern for RSI4. ................................................................................................... 39
Figure 19: Changes in slag color from heat RSI3 at each process step. ....................................... 40
xvi
Figure 20: Changes in appearance variations across width of the ladle. ...................................... 40
Figure 21: XRD analysis of LMF slags. ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 22: XRD Analysis of RSI3 AF. ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 23: B3 comparison between Si-bearing (a) and RSi (b). ................................................... 44
Figure 24: Alumina concentration in slag comparison for Si-bearing (a) versus RSi (b). ........... 45
Figure 25: Silicon oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats. (Dashed line heats are Si-
bearing) ......................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 26: Comparison of Si-bearing slags vs RSi slags. ............................................................. 46
Figure 27: Ca oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats. ............................................ 47
Figure 28: Manganese Oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats. ............................. 47
Figure 29: Iron Oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats. ......................................... 48
Figure 30: Sulfur concentration of ‘Far’ side slag throughout key LMF process steps. .............. 49
Figure 31: Visualization of sulfur transfer from the steel to the slag versus time from RSI2. ..... 49
Figure 32: Comparing Young and Somerville’s equations for sulfide capacity. .......................... 50
Figure 33: Sulfide capacity versus B3 using Young and Somerville’s equations. ....................... 51
Figure 34: Sulfur equilibrium prediction plot for RSI2. ............................................................... 53
Figure 35: Comparison to actual final sulfur concentration versus different models. .................. 55
Figure 36: The effects of tap oxygen (ppm) on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal. .... 57
Figure 37: The effects of arrival Al % on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal. ............. 58
Figure 38: FactSage calculation of reduced oxygen ppm with increased Aluminum wt%. ......... 59
Figure 39: The effects of stir rate on the desulfurization rate. ...................................................... 60
Figure 40: The effects of arrival temperature (K) on sulfur equilibrium. ..................................... 61
Figure 41 Ca – Al Phase Diagram comparing temperatures B3 ratios. ........................................ 61
xvii
Figure 42: Effects of arrival B3 on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal (OT heat
excluded) ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 43: Incoming B3 versus Prewire (‘C’) inclusion index. .................................................... 63
Figure 44: Sulfur content in the steel throughout processing time for RSi. ................................. 64
Figure 45: Sulfur content in the steel throughout processing time for Si-bearing. ....................... 65
Figure 46: FeO and MnO trending for EAF slags (~2700 heats) ................................................. 67
Figure 47: Al consumption based on oxygen ppm present. .......................................................... 69
Figure 48: Weight of related slag components. ............................................................................ 70
Figure 49: Inclusion pattern for RSi grades. (RSI3) ..................................................................... 71
Figure 50: Inclusion pattern for RSi grade – non-typical. (RSI1) ................................................ 72
Figure 51: Inclusion pattern for Si-bearing heat (SI3) .................................................................. 72
Figure 52: Inclusion pattern for SI1*. Effects of furnace slag carryover. .................................... 73
Figure 53: Inclusion pattern for Si-bearing heat with late additions. (SI4) .................................. 74
Figure 54: Inclusion evolution comparing RSi and Si-bearing heats as well as Sulfur content. .. 75
Figure 55: % Mg from AFA inclusion data using robot samples to compare effects from
desulfurization rates. ..................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 56: Comparison of two different heats that resulted in different modification. ................ 77
Figure 57: Effects of FeSi additions on AFA results. ................................................................... 78
Figure 58: Comparison of the inclusion index versus total weight added of FeSi. ...................... 79
Figure 59: Solid inclusion % for each multi-depth location and process step S-C. ...................... 79
Figure 60: Inclusion index versus pre-rinse times. [57] ............................................................... 81
Figure 61: Post Rinse inclusion evolution. ................................................................................... 82
Figure 62: Inclusion count trend for robot samples. ..................................................................... 83
Figure 63: Inclusion index trend. .................................................................................................. 83
xviii
Figure 64: Multi-Depth Sampling of RSI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’........................................................ 85
Figure 65: Robot Samples of RSI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’.................................................................... 86
Figure 66: Multi-Depth Sampling of SI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’. ......................................................... 87
Figure 67: Robot Samples of SI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’. ..................................................................... 88
Figure 68: Inclusion index comparison charts for multi-depth samples and robot samples ......... 89
Figure 69: Ca/Al Ratio comparison for multi-depth and robot..................................................... 89
Figure 70: AFA inclusion data % Al comparison for robot vs multi-depth samples ................... 90
Figure 71: AFA inclusion data % Ca comparison for robot vs multi-depth for heat RSI3 (RSi) . 90
Figure 72: Slag Droplet AFA example. ........................................................................................ 91
Figure 73: Pictures and composition of slag droplets found in AFA’s......................................... 92
Figure 74: Emulsification droplets in comparison of stir flow trends. ......................................... 93
Figure 75: Effects of Arcing time on droplet formation. .............................................................. 94
Figure 76: Slag Droplet Inclusion Index effects on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal.
(RSIOT excluded) ......................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 77: Droplet inclusion index versus total sulfur removed................................................... 96
Figure 78: Droplet inclusion index versus initial stir rate............................................................. 96
Figure 79: Number of slag droplets per sample comparing RSi and Si-bearing. ......................... 97
Figure 80: Inclusion index per sample comparing RSi and Si-bearing. ....................................... 97
Figure 81: Four different heats with all the same wire addition. [57] .......................................... 99
Figure 82: Calcium wire model program at NSTI. ..................................................................... 100
Figure 83: Stopper Rod traces. Ideal (a) Clogging (b) [57] ........................................................ 101
Figure 84: Stopper rod schematic with ideal stopper rod trend (right). ...................................... 101
Figure 85: Stopper Rod Deviation before and after model. ........................................................ 102
Figure 86: Example of the effects of late additions in conjunction with poor stir conditions. ... 103
xix
Figure 87: Histogram of the footage difference in SparkDat versus the wire model. ................ 104
Figure 88: Solid fraction at 4 seconds. (a) Temperature profile at 4 seconds. (b) ...................... 105
Figure 89: Mn concentration change throughout sample depth for LMF (a) and Caster (b)
samples. ....................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 90: Schematic of sample. ................................................................................................. 106
Figure 91: Grain size analysis at various locations throughout the cross section of the sample. 107
Figure 92: Micro-segregation of Mn and S comparing methods. ............................................... 108
Figure 93: Inclusion count of MnS versus time and sulfur content in the steel. [54] ................. 108
1
INTRODUCTION
The fundamentals of the Ladle Metallurgy Furnace (LMF) were initially developed in the
1980’s. [1] These fundamentals have evolved and have been further refined. Though the
fundamental principles are still relevant, much more detail is given to the investigation of the
processes and practices at the LMF due to the increased demand for cleaner steel and more
challenging applications. The initial research and investigations were focused on Basic Oxygen
Steelmaking (BOS) process since it produced about 60% of the world's total output of primary
steel production. With the increase of the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) flat-rolled mills, capable of
making automotive and higher end applications, the need for cleaner steels has become a topic of
interest for many steel-making companies and their customers.
There are two main types of inclusions, indigenous and exogenous. [2] [3] Exogenous
inclusions are formed due to factors during the process such as slag entrapment, mold powder, etc.
These inclusion types are typically very large, and are detrimental to the finished product
properties. [4] Indigenous inclusions are formed during the process such as through deoxidization,
Ca modification, refractory (MgO) reactions from the ladle walls, reoxidation, and impurities in
alloy additions. [5] Typical indigenous inclusions studied include: alumina (Al2O3), Ca –
aluminates (CaAl), spinels (MgO-Al2O3 or MgO –TiO2), manganese sulfides (MnS), and calcium
sulfides (CaS). Though these inclusions can be relatively large in size (>15 microns), it is abnormal
for indigenous inclusions to be larger than 10 microns. These inclusions are the main focus of the
current study.
2
It has been proven that clean steel has improved fatigue properties [6], increased ductility
due to the reduction of MnS, [7] increased fracture toughness [8] [9], and reduced defects such as
slivers. [10] Another potential problem of inclusions that tend to agglomerate, [11] such as
Al2O3/CaS and MgO- Al2O3, can cause stopper rod and/or submerged entry nozzle clogging at the
continuous caster. [12] [13] [14] [15] This can lead to a flushing event that allows the
agglomeration to release from the rod or nozzle and entrap into the steel slab. These issues have
detrimental impact on the high-end application products, such as line pipes (high toughness) and
automotive parts (surface finishing and formability), etc. Understanding the types of inclusions
that are detrimental to the end application as well as the types of defects specific inclusions can
form is important. These factors combine to aid in understanding what processes are needed to
take place at the LMF to be able to meet the clean steel expectations. A general guideline for the
industry has been presented to outline the cleanliness requirements of different applications as well
as a basic discussion on the inclusion types. [16]
Evaluation techniques are also a critical part of gaining a better understanding of steel
cleanliness in relation to inclusion formation and modification. [3] [16] The limitation to most
evaluation techniques such as Automated Feature Analysis (AFA) with a Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) is the amount of time it takes to gain usable results. This is obviously not
efficient and sufficient for a steel production process. Due to the ever changing inclusion amounts,
compositions, and conditions in the ladle, LMF operations are evaluating effective ways to get an
online method to determine Ca wire addition and cleanliness impact at the specific time in the
ladle. [17] Hardware and software packages built into spectrometers are in the forefront to be able
to produce useful inclusion data within seconds. These methods can be highly beneficial for
3
industrial applications, after the validation and calibration to the specific application; however,
none have been developed enough to be used in the LMF operations before this study.
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
It is known that inclusion type, population, size, composition, and shape can affect the
quality of the finished products. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Typically these factors or a combination
of these factors are used to determine the level of steel cleanliness. During LMF processing,
numerous events can play a role in each of these factors.
IMPORTANCE OF SLAG
The slag layer plays a very important role in steel cleanliness. [23] The ability for the
molten slag to be able to capture inclusions as well as intermix with the liquid steel is a necessity
in the LMF process. [24] [25] Given enough contact time, slags can modify the solid inclusions
present within the heat because of their interactions with the calcium present in the slag. [26]
However, in a production setting, there is typically not sufficient time to completely modify all the
inclusions to the composition of the slag, which is the equilibrium condition between the steel and
the slag. The use of thermodynamic tools, which calculates the equilibrium condition, is not
sufficient to completely understand the role that slag plays in the LMF process. [27] Understanding
the relationship between the kinetics and thermodynamics of the slag layer, and its ability to react
with the molten steel is frequently being evaluated. There are also variables that can adjust the slag
properties throughout the process such as sulfur (S) and silicon (Si) contents.
The slag layer is typically quantified using a basicity calculation, B3. This equation takes
into account the acids and bases in the slag. It also produces a ratio which helps determine if the
slag is liquid during steel making temperatures. Equation 1 shows the B3 calculation.
𝐵3 =𝐶𝑎𝑂
𝑆𝑖𝑂2+ 𝐴𝑙2𝑂3 (1)
5
If the slag is not liquid during steel making temperatures, the slag will not be efficient at
completing the specific functions that are desired from the slag. LMF slags are design too:
Protect the molten steel from atmosphere
Aid in desulfurization
Capture inclusions
Act as an insulator and hold in heat
Protect the arc
The slag composition changes throughout the heat. It is desired that the initial slag be fluid to aid
in desulfurization, and thicken as the heat progresses to be able to capture inclusions as well as
maintain temperature. However, the slag can be too thick (CaO saturated) which can result in a
non-liquid slag. This is reached when the B3 exceeds approximately 2.0. The desired composition
for slags is highlighted in the blue region located between the red dotted lines in Figure 1. The red
lines indicate the range of temperatures for the LMF process.
While the B3 of the slag is important, the iron oxide (FeO) and manganese oxide (MnO)
contents of the slag are also of interest. Due to some EAF slag carryover, FeO and MnO contents
in the slag are present early in the heat. These oxides are reducible, and should be reduced out of
the slag to a minimal concentration (FeO + MnO < 1%) to aid in desulfurization and inclusion
capture. By comparing heats with differing amounts of excessive furnace slag carryover, the
effects of these components can easily be seen.
6
Figure 1: Ca-Al phase diagram.
DESULFURIZATION AND THE EFFECTS OF SULFUR
Sulfur content in the steel has an effect on the final inclusion composition within the steel
bath. [22] Through laboratory and industrial experiments, it was shown that depending on the
sulfur content of the steel bath, at the time of Ca treatment, a different reaction other than to modify
alumina was present. [28] If the sulfur content was high (> 40 ppm) the formation of CaS was the
initial reaction that took place after Ca treatment was completed. For low sulfur heats
(approximately 7 ppm), the initial formation of CaS was not present. The Ca was observed to form
CaO or CaAl. This validates the criticality of wire addition time. When the sulfur is high, the Ca
attempts to react/bond with sulfur and alumina simultaneously, which in a production environment
the reaction time with the slag is too short to modify all the alumina. This reveals the reason that
the LMF desulfurization is critical. The desulfurization process occurs by the dissolved lime (CaO)
7
in the slag interacting with the sulfur in the steel during slag/steel mixing. This reaction is shown
below in Equation 2.
3 (CaO) + 2[Al] + 3[S] (Al2O3) + 3(CaS) (2)
where ( ) represents the component is in the slag,
[ ] represents the component is in the steel.
Certain conditions are needed to achieve a high desulfurization rate. [29] Those are listed below.
High temperature
Fluid slag
High mixing conditions at the slag/steel interface
Aluminum
Low oxygen potential
If any of the conditions mentioned above are hindered, reduced, or changed it will affect the
desulfurization rate of the steel and the time required to desulfurize the steel to the target value.
Desulfurization is dependent on both thermodynamics and kinetics aspects. [30] Therefore,
producing an effective industrial model that can predict desulfurization removal rates, and sulfur
capacities of slags is very challenging. Several researchers have developed models to calculate
the sulfide capacity of slags. [31] [32] [33] [34] The sulfide capacity of the slag is dependent on
several variables. A few of them include the oxides that are present in the slag such as Iron Oxide
(FeO) and Manganese Oxide (MnO), the thickness and viscosity of the slag, the amount of arrival
sulfur, the temperature (most models assume a constant temperature), etc. [35] [36] It is also
understood that by decreasing the content of FeO and MnO in the slag, the desulfurization rate of
a heat increases. [37] This can be attributed to both kinetic and thermodynamic relationships. The
interaction of the slag/steel interface is critical; however, the availability of deoxidants at the
slag/steel interface can affect the removal of the oxygen from iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn).
8
Since the slag/steel interface interactions are so critical, the argon flow rate and porous plug design
can also heavily influence the desulfurization process. The higher the flow rate the larger the
steel/slag interface becomes, which allows for quicker desulfurization time assuming that the heat
is deoxidized, or has a low oxygen potential.
Several researchers have developed equations for sulfide capacity in slags. The KTH
sulfide capacity equation is shown in Equation 3. This shows the relationship between the sulfur
distribution ratio (Ls) and the sulfide capacity (Cs). [32] A similar equation was developed by
Steneholm et al. for the distribution ratio (Ls) shown in Equation 4, which will be used in this
study. [38]
𝐿𝑆 =(𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠%𝑆)+∆(𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠%𝑆) 0
[𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠%𝑆] − ∆[𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠%𝑆]0 = 𝐶𝑆𝑓𝑆
𝑎𝑂( [𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠%𝑂]−∆[𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠%𝑂]0 ).
𝐾𝑂
𝐾𝑆 (3)
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝐿𝑆) = 𝑙𝑜𝑔(%𝑆)𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔
[%𝑆]𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙= −
935
𝑇+ 1.375 + 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝐶𝑆) + 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑓𝑠) − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 (𝑎𝑜) (4)
where Ko is the partition coefficients oxygen at the temperature,
Ks is the partition coefficient of sulfur at the temperature,
fs is the activity coefficient of the sulfur, 0(mass%S) is the initial contents of sulfur in the slag, 0[mass%S] is the initial contents of sulfur in the steel,
∆(mass%S) is the change in mass% of sulfur in the slag due to slag/steel interactions,
∆[mass%S] is the change in mass% of sulfur in the steel due to slag/steel interactions,
ao is the oxygen activity in the steel.
The relationship between the optical basicity of the slag (Λ) and sulfide capacity is shown by
Equation 5. This equation also incorporates the effects of temperature (T). [39] Experimental
results that were published at 1600 oC is shown in Figure 2.
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝐶𝑆) =[22690−(54640∗ 𝛬)]
𝑇+ [(43.6 ∗ 𝛬) − 25.2] (5)
9
Figure 2: Sulfide capacity versus optical basicity. [40]
Young, et al used a sulfide capacity equation that incorporated optical basicity as well as
Al2O3 and SiO2 wt % from the slag. [34] This equation has been used for the CFD modeling of
slag emulsification, and it is shown in Equation 6. [41]
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝐶𝑆) = −13.913 + 42.84 Λ − 23.82 Λ2 −11710
𝑇− 0.02223(%𝑆𝑖𝑂2) − 0.02275(%𝐴𝑙2𝑂3) (6)
These equations will be used to compare which method is most aligned to the current study.
Sulfide capacity is not the only important calculation to develop industrial models. Being able to
calculate the predicted final sulfur percentage is also important. This is developed by predicting
the equilibrium sulfur value since the heat approaches equilibrium towards the end of the
processing time. A series of equations can be used to predict the final sulfur (or sulfur equilibrium)
10
of the steel. This set of equations started with the mass transfer coefficient as shown in Equation
7. Where W/A is the weight of the metal divided by the surface area of the slag/steel interface.
The mass transfer coefficient is then substituted into Equation 8 to solve for the kinetic constant,
k. [42] After the kinetic constant has been calculated, it is placed into Equation 9 to solve for the
sulfur equilibrium. Turkdogan also developed an equation for predicting the final sulfur. [43] This
is shown in Equation 10. Where Si is the initial sulfur percentage, Seq is the sulfur content that is
in equilibrium with the slag, and Sf is the content at the end of stir time. The methods for predicting
final sulfur will also be compared to the results of the current study.
𝑚𝑠 = 5.49 ∗ 10−10 ∗ (𝑊
𝐴)
2
− 8.27 ∗ 10−7 ∗ (𝑊
𝐴) + 1.499 ∗ 10−3 (7)
𝑘 = 𝑚𝑠∗𝜌∗𝐴
𝑊𝑀∗ (1 +
𝑊𝑀
𝑊𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔∗3000+
ln (𝐿𝑠)
24) (8)
[%𝑆𝑒𝑞] =[𝑆𝑖]∗𝑊𝑀
𝑊𝑀+(𝐿𝑆∗𝑊𝑆) (9)
%𝑆𝑓 = %𝑆𝑒𝑞 + (%𝑆𝑖 − %𝑆𝑒𝑞)𝑒−𝑘𝑡 (10)
INCLUSION FORMATION AND EVOLUTION
For an Al killed steel, alumina is formed through the deoxidation of the steel bath. [44]
[45] At Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa, Inc (NSTI), the standard practice is to block tap a heat. Block
tapping is where additions are added to the ladle while tapping the heat. At NSTI typical additions
are manganese (Mn), lime (CaO), calcium-aluminate (CaAl), and aluminum (Al). This results in
the heat arriving at the LMF typically fully – killed (oxygen below 10 ppm), and with a
considerable amount of alumina present in both the steel and the slag. Alumina can also form
through the addition of alloys since most alloy additions at the LMF are not pure, and can contain
Al as an impurity. Furthermore, several alloys have a considerable amount of oxygen associated
with them. Table 1 shows typical oxygen ppm associated with different alloy additions. For
11
example, whenever a Mn addition occurs during the processing it will result in more oxygen being
introduced to the ladle. This will require more deoxidant additions to be made.
Table 1: Total oxygen with specific alloy additions. [46]
Therefore, since alumina is present in steel as an inclusion from either deoxidation or
reoxidation, it is an inclusion to be focused on, since it can be detrimental to the castability and
cleanliness of the final product. Throughout the processing at the LMF, alumina inclusions interact
with the refractories [47] as well as with some residual Mg in alloys to form spinels. [48] [49] [50]
The inclusion evolution throughout a heat has been studied by several researchers. [3] [48] [51]
[52] [53] [54] [37] These studies have shown to follow a very similar inclusion path from alumina
(Al2O3) to spinel to Ca-Al or a liquid phase, as depicted in Figure 3. However, there are several
processing variables that can affect the path of the inclusions, increase their size, and/or change
the population of the inclusions. This makes effective and consistent Ca treatment a challenge,
which this study attempts to rectify.
12
Figure 3: Typical inclusion path throughout LMF Processing. [3]
It has also been seen that silicon, especially when added as ferro-silicon (FeSi), has many
residual elements such as Ca. [55] [35] It has been seen that the timing of this addition within the
process effects the inclusion concentration, population, and modification. [56] [57] Though it is
not as efficient as Al, Si can also be used as a deoxidizer. For the Al-killed steel, Si is added to
increase physical properties of the steel. However, Si-bearing heats act differently than those with
a Si restriction (RSi), typically 0.04% Si maximum. [58] [59] For Si-bearing heats, it has been
seen that when Si is present Al consumption is lowered, slag composition changes, inclusion
morphology and composition changes more rapidly throughout the heat, and desulfurization is
accelerated. [60] [33] These differences in Si-bearing grades allow for better interaction with the
slag interface which can improve steel cleanliness through better inclusions removal. [35] [61]
CALCIUM TREATMENT
One researcher, Zhang, et al, used phase stability diagrams to aid in determining the
composition of the inclusion during critical processing times. [62] The commercially available
13
thermodynamic software such as FactSage and Thermo-Calc, use a similar concept to calculate
the combinations of elements that are thermodynamically favorable. [63] [58] [59]. Ca treatment
is designed to modify the solid inclusions present to liquid inclusions at the casting temperatures.
[64] [50] This process not only changes the composition of the inclusions but also modify the
morphology of the solid inclusions, which can help in the final product properties if the inclusions
are held under a small diameter (< 10 microns). Predictions for the amount of Ca needed to modify
a particular inclusion type have also been calculated using the thermodynamic software packages.
[65] [66] [67] [21] However, the addition of too much Ca can also produce unwanted inclusions
such as Ca – Sulfides (CaS) and Manganese – Sulfides (MnS). [68] [35] [69] [70]
If alumina and/or spinels are remaining in the steel, they can ultimately cause clogging at
the continuous caster. [71] [72] Incongruously, CaS resulting from too much of a Ca addition can
also cause clogging at the caster. Therefore Ca treatment is critical. The stopper rod trend is used
for real time feedback of cleanliness from the caster. The stopper rod is designed to control flow
from the tundish to the mold through the submerged entry nozzle. The stopper rod moves up or
down to reach the desired flow through the machine. A schematic of the stopper rod as well as the
axis the rod moves on is shown in Figure 4. The rod should wear slightly throughout its campaign
(travel in a slight negative direction). However, if alumina based inclusions or CaS are present
they will agglomerate to the stopper rod forcing the rod to have to raise up to maintain flow. This
is an indicator of steel cleanliness. The stopper rod trace can alert the operations team of the
cleanliness of the heat; however, it can also move upward for width changes, low tundish weight,
and speed changes. Therefore, those have to be taken in account as well when observing the stopper
rod trace. Determining what kind of inclusion type or the source of the inclusion formation that is
causing the rod to rise, cannot be solved by the stopper rod trace.
14
Figure 4: Schematic of stopper rod control. [73]
STIR PRACTICES
Stir practices are a critical part of the LMF process. Typically, argon stir is ongoing
throughout the entirety of the time at the LMF. Argon is bubbled into the ladle with porous plugs
located at the bottom of the ladle. The location for the plugs can vary; however, it is beneficial to
have two plugs that are located symmetrically to each other. This allows for an optimized flow
pattern throughout the ladle. [74] Argon flow is typically continuous; however, it does vary
throughout the process. At NSTI turbulent flow is deemed to be greater than 0.99 m3/min (35
scfm), mixed turbulent flow is 0.57 – 0.99 m3/min (20-35 scfm), laminar flow or gentle rinse is
0.14 – 0.57 m3/min (5-20 scfm), and discontinued bubbling is below 0.14 m3/min (5 scfm). These
flow rates directly affect the amount of turbulence and slag/metal interface is present in the ladle.
Upon arrival of the heat at the LMF, the bubbling of argon is desired to be at high flow (~
1.42 m3/min or 50 scfm). This allows for high interaction levels of the steel and slag which is
15
desired for the desulfurization process. However, due to the turbulence that this flow rate creates
on the slag surface (open eye), it is desired that this time to be minimized. The longer the steel is
exposed to the atmosphere by the open eye, the more reoxidation can occur at the slag eye. After
the sulfur has reduced below the target level in the steel bath, the stir is turned down to minimize
a stir eye, but sufficient enough to maintain homogenization of the bath. This time is called pre-
rinse, which is also a very crucial part of the process. This time is used to float remaining inclusions
from the steel bath into the slag. [75] [31] [57] Therefore, the stir rate should still maintain flow in
the ladle, but without creating a large slag eye. The length of pre-rinse is typically dictated by the
process time available at the LMF. The slag composition and its viscosity during this time are
critical factors in being able to capture the inclusions. This step also homogenize the temperature
and composition of the steel bath. [76] At the end of pre-rinse, the Ca treatment occurs. This is
immediately followed by the post rinse. The post rinse is used to establish a homogenous
temperature and uniform inclusion modification. This stir rate is typically near or slightly less than
the rate during pre-rinse. The post rinse is used to achieve homogeneity throughout the heat and
full inclusion modification before delivering the heat to the caster.
However, due to conditions that cannot be controlled such as: EAF slag carryover, arrival
temperature at the LMF, ladles that are returned from the caster, ladle skull falling from the LMF’s
hood into the ladle, alloy contamination, stir plugs not functioning properly, extended time at the
LMF (> 2 hours processing time), expedited time at the LMF (< 30 min processing time), etc.
Process parameters like high stir rates or pre-rinse time, which are desired, may not be able to be
achieved. These are the conditions that can limit models developed for industry settings. To be an
effective model, abnormalities that occur during operations have to be accounted for in any model
used for industry settings.
16
SAMPLING
Sampling Technique
Two sampling techniques, i.e., vacuum samplers and duck-bill samplers, have been
studied. [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] The results from the studies have been mixed such as location
of sampling, timing of the sample, as well as the effects of cooling through the different sampling
techniques. The ability for Mn to segregate during solidification can affect the final inclusion data.
It depends on the sample thickness and cooling rate of the sample. [83] The main inclusion type
that has shown the effects of sampling techniques are sulfides particularly MnS and occasionally
CaS mainly based on the sulfur content. [84] Other methods of sampling have been created to
attempt to understand the slag/steel interface. Nevertheless, the results from this study did not
match the work done by K. Beskow, P. Dayal et al. [85]
Mn segregation is a known fundamental solidification effect in solidifying steels. [86] The
amount of segregation is dependent on the percentage of Mn composition in the steel. [87] Mn
often reacts with sulfur to form Manganese Sulfides (MnS). These inclusions are harmful to the
finished product. Even though MnS are typically very small and usually pushed towards the
centerline of the steel, they can have deterimental effects on the finished properties if not properly
controled. The cooling rate at which steel solidfies can also change the amount of segregation as
well as the amounts of MnS formation that is seen. Modeling MnS formation helps to understand
the effects of different variables such as cooling rates and sample thicknesses. [88] The Scheil
equation, Equation 11, is a commonly used equation for non-equilbruim solidification. [89] Brody
and Flemings developed an equation to calculate the constant α for a specific system that was
correlate the dendrite arm spacing. This equation for α is shown in Equation 12. Clyne was able to
improve the accuracy of α by further developing the equation. The extended equation is shown in
17
Equation 13, where Ω becomes the new constant used to predict the composition changes at the
solidification interface. [90] The new term Ω is then used in place of α in the Brody and Flemings
model previously determined, Equation 14. [91] The Scheil equation and the Clyne, et al. equation
will be compared to see which method maybe more in line with the current data.
𝐶𝐿 = 𝐶0
(1−𝑓𝑠 )1−𝑘 (11)
𝛼 = 4𝐷𝑠𝑡𝑓
𝜆2⁄ (12)
𝛺 = 𝛼 [1 − 𝑒−1
𝛼⁄ ] − 0.5𝑒−1
2𝛼⁄ (13)
𝐶𝑆 = 𝑘 𝐶𝑜[1 − (1 − 2𝛺𝑘)𝑓𝑠](𝑘−1)
(1−2𝛺𝑘)⁄ (14)
where CL is the liquid concentration,
C0 is the initial concentration,
α is the constant for the system, Ds is the diffusivity,
tf is the time for solidification,
λ is the dendrite arm spacing/ average grain size,
k is the partition coefficient,
Cs is the solid concentration.
One of the issues in the production setting, is when two different sampling techniques are
used throughout the melting/casting process. [77] [84] This can result in slightly different
measurement values. This is due to a difference in the cooling/solidification rates.
Sample Evaluation using PDA-OES
In the last few years, major development work mainly focused on fast evaluation of
inclusions using spectrometers has been ongoing. [92] These methods are being developed for
production use, and are very close to being used on a daily basis in determining inclusions present
within a matter of seconds compared to hours with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) using
Automated Feature Analysis (AFA). [93] [78] [79] The Pulse Discrimination Analysis by Optical
18
Emission Spectroscopy (PDA-OES) method is an example in this particular research aspect. Prior
to these methods, the most common method for evaluation is by AFA analysis through the SEM.
[94] [9] This method has been used to determine the inclusion population, composition, size (μm),
and modification, as well as their distribution. The AFA method also produces a calculation that
can be used as a guide on cleanliness called the inclusion index. [3] The inclusion index is a tool
used to compare heats on cleanliness in terms of surface area of inclusions contained. Equation 15
is used to calculate the inclusion index.
𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 =𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎∗0.17
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 (15)
The surface area scanned for a typically AFA is approximately 50 mm2. This index will be used
throughout as a baseline comparison between heats, and certain data sets. Wang et al, developed a
way to covert the 2-D AFA data to 3-D information. [95] Other methods, such as ASTM E45 for
product analysis and a few other classification techniques, have been used. [96] In this dissertation,
the standard AFA method will be used for inclusion analysis. In addition, this study also has a
focus on using a PDA-OES software analysis to further develop an online Ca treatment calculation
for the LMF process.
MODELING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Thermodynamic and Mathematical Models
FactSage has been used in conjunction with mathematical models to attempt to predict
some key process parameters, such as desulfurization rates, reaction kinetics [97] [98] [99] [100],
inclusion floatation mechanisms [101], slag – inclusion absorption [102], and slag properties [103],
etc. These methods did not attempt to take into account other process parameters such as furnace
slag carryover, processing time variation, alloy residuals, stir deficiencies, or other process upset
19
anomalies. Its outlining assumptions are not realistic to a production setting, e.g., a flat slag/steel
interface, constant temperature, as well as (in most cases) constant slag composition. [104]
However, using these tools can simulate a part of the process with validation against industrial
experiments.
Since it is not possible to see inside the ladle, nor is it possible to see most inclusions with
the naked eye trying to see and understand the all kinetics and thermodynamics of the LMF process
is difficult. This alludes to the significance of modelling in predicting information that can be
applied to industrial processes. To develop a comprehensive model, it is essential to understand
fluid dynamics, inclusion kinetics, and the flow rate during each process step at an LMF.
Processing parameters are established on the basis of cause and effect. However, it is difficult to
tie all the thermodynamic and kinetic components together since depending on where in the ladle
one may have a stronger effect. A popular method of visually understanding a portion of the
process is through water modeling. Water modeling is typically conducted using oil and water.
This is used to physically simulate the flow patterns produced from different plug locations, flow
patterns versus different flow rates, slag velocity, time to reach homogeneity, as well as some
observations on slag emulsification. [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] Pistorius used water
modeling to aid the LMF operations on the design of the plug locations, and to observe how
bubbles diffuse throughout a liquid steel bath under different flow rates and conditions. [111]
However, water modeling has its limitations too. It cannot predict the effects of slag composition
or the effects of a particular element on a steel bath. It is also difficult to predict inclusion
entrapment into the slag, and the basic process of desulfurization.
Seetharaman et al. [112] completed a desulfurization study which is using micro-models
as the foundation for the process models. This particular paper focuses on the desulfurization at
20
the refining stages. The time elapse that was found is similar to the same time frame that is seen
in the current study, which is approximately 10 minutes for desulfurization. However, it is noted
that a range was found in the actual processing that inconsistent injection rates of argon flow as
the root cause of the variability. This paper discussed the difference between the two-film theory
and the use of micro-models. Where the two-film theory holds the slag – steel interface as a straight
line, and it is known to not be flat. Therefore, this causes other means of interactions, which have
to be taken into account. Furthermore, it incorporated the model developed by IRSID, a
thermodynamic model, to determine activities of alumina as well as used to determine sulfide
capacities and viscosities of slags by assuming equilibrium in the mixing zone. These calculations
excluded the effects of interfacial area and the mass transfer coefficients, which are relevant due
to findings of slag droplets deep within the liquid steel bath in the current work. Other assumptions:
one plug mimics what two plugs do together just doubled, steel close to the upper ladle wall
contains less S than the bulk early in the process, lower sulfur content steel is transported down
into the bulk of the steel where it is mixed with higher sulfur steel. [112]
CFD Modeling
The use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling can be used to simulate the water
modeling observations while incorporating slag thickness and flow rates. [113] [114] It was found
that the ideal ladle configured with 2 porous plugs at 135 degrees apart is the most efficient. [74]
In a very similar study, Shivaram [115] found that the best location was mid-radius and
diametrically opposite each other. Costa, et al [116] studied multiphase flow in argon stir ladles
with different plug configurations to quantify mixing time by means of CFD simulation (ANSYS-
CFX 12.1 ©). This was also done by using tracer elements. Marins, et al. also used a tracer method
in conjunction with a CFD and mathematical model to predict mixing times, flow rates, inclusion
21
growth and flotation as a function of rinsing time. Alexis, et al used CFD modeling to optimize
stirring condition for the LMF process. [117] All of the listed work had some underlying
assumptions built in to the model. The assumptions were things such as: frictionless side walls of
the ladle, flat slag/steel interface, constant compositions, constant temperature, and constant slag
properties.
CFD modeling is a very useful tool to simulate the ladle process; if this tool is combined
with a mathematical model and/or a thermodynamic model such as FactSage, it can become a very
powerful tool. After combining these techniques together, the CFD method becomes capable of
predicting useful process parameters, such as desulfurization [112] [118], ideal slag composition
[118], ideal slag thickness, slag emulsification [41] and its effects amongst many other process
parameter. [119] For example, Aoki, et al. used three different types of models in conjunction to
simulate the inclusion removal within the ladle refining process. [120] The first model used an
Eulerian-Lagrangian algorithm being coupled with a 3D transient multiphase flow model to
compute the flow pattern that is created by argon stirring (governing equations solved by
FLUENT), Figure 5. The second model used was a micro-scale algorithm that calculates the
probability of an inclusion to diffuse with a bubble, Figure 6. And, the final model was completed
by incorporating the inclusion probability model with the Eulerian Lagrangian model to calculate
the inclusion removal rate. This rate was calculated using the initial oxygen content (50 ppm in
this study), and only decreasing it by inclusion removal that was attached to a bubble, Figure 7.
This model focused on oxide only inclusions and did not take into account the emulsification
phenomenon and other inclusion compositional data, as well as the morphology change of
inclusion. This approach also did not consider the variation of the slag composition and its effects
on the inclusions absorption with respect to the depth of the molten steel.
22
Figure 5: Flow pattern for ladle with offset plugs used for argon bubbling. [120]
Figure 6: Probability of inclusion attachment using turbulent random motion. [120]
23
Figure 7: Oxygen ppm and rate constant versus stir time. [120]
Ramstrom et al. [32] incorporated slag-metal reactions into a mass transfer model to
increase the accuracy of their CFD calculations. The paper used a thermodynamic model to include
relevant slag – steel reactions. The activities of the oxides in the slags were calculated based on
Björkvall’s thermodynamic model, [121] and the sulfide capacities were calculated using the KTH
group’s model. [122] This data set was tested against industrial data and found to be in relatively
close agreement. This model is a more general model and it does not incorporate the temperature
and slag composition changes; it is also a 2D model. The composition used does not match the
composition ranges at NSTI. The composition that Ramstrom used was carbon 1.02%, Mn 0.28%,
Cr 1.4%, and the most critical the S at 0.023-0.012% which is an order of magnitude higher than
in the current study. The Ramstrom et al. study was also completed under a vacuum. [32]
Similarity, Andersson et al. [118] developed a 2-D three-phase fluid flow model with
thermodynamic reactions to take in account reoxidation and desulphurization. This model was
found to be agreeable with industrial data on predicting slag composition which is a big factor in
24
desulfurization and inclusion capture. However, these reactions and model were performed under
a vacuum which is not used in the current work. [118] Recently, Senguttuvan and Irons [41]
developed a model using multiphase CFD methodology to simulate two-phase entrainment and
obtain estimates for the number and size of droplets formed so that the interfacial area for the slag
– steel reaction rates could be calculated. This model was validated using water modeling. It was
found that slag viscosity affected the droplet rate and size. Also, the simulations show that the slag
conditions selected to maximize the thermodynamic refining capability (sulfide capacity) may not
maximize the interfacial area and the refining rate. [41]
25
OBJECTIVES
1. Many researchers have studied slag, and its functions throughout the LMF process.
However, understanding the variations in slag across the steel bath throughout the LMF
process has not been seen in research. A better understanding of the ideal sampling location
as well as at what point in the process does the slag composition remain uniform (i.e., slag
evolution) will be determined by comparing multiple slag sample locations during the LMF
processing.
2. The fundamentals LMF process parameters for desulfurization has been researched. It is
desired to have a better understanding of the desulfurization rate under different process
parameters and process times throughout the LMF process. It has been seen that initially
the desulfurization rate tends to be slow, followed by a much faster rate until the sulfur
level plateaus again. Therefore, a better understanding of process effects on desulfurization
and sulfur removal is desired.
3. Current sampling techniques in industry involve capturing a sample at a particular depth
(typically ~ 0.6 m into the ladle). The ability to obtain multiple steel samples
simultaneously at different depths and locations within a ladle has not been done. The
ability to capture more than one sample at multiple depths will allow for a better
understanding of inclusion flow and evolution within the ladle.
4. Slag emulsification has been studied on a macro-scale. It has been seen, using water
modeling techniques and CFD, that slag droplets can reach depths below the slag layer.
However, looking at slag emulsification on a micro-scale has not been completed. Being
26
able to understand and quantify slag droplet formation, can bring insight into the refining
process at the LMF that has not been studied.
5. The effects of silicon in Al-killed heats is a topic of interest for many researchers. Silicon
has seen to have effects on slag conditions and LMF process parameters. FeSi residuals
can also play a role in achieving the desired modification of an inclusions population.
Therefore understanding the complex nature of Al-killed heats with silicon additions, will
help aid in producing a simple industrial scale Ca treatment model to produce a ‘clean’
product, and modified inclusions.
27
EXPERIMENTAL AND MODELING METHODOLOGY
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
To be able to compare results from multiple slag and steel samples simultaneously, a
sampling device has been designed and developed in this study. One obstacle that had to be taken
into account is the limited accessibility of the ladle through the LMF hood. The LMF at NSTI has
no accessibility to the backside of the ladle. However, due to the ladle consisting of two porous
plugs, it was assumed that the steel and slag flows in the ladle are symmetrical on either half.
Figure 8 shows a layout of the hood design at Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa. The ladle hood openings
as well as sampling locations are listed below in Table 2.
Table 2: Sampling locations
Location Sample/Action Completed
Above Argon Plus/Stir Eyes Three-prong slag sample just outside eye edge
Robot Robot steel samples, and all temperatures
Stir Lance Apparatus Multi-depth argon purged sampling device
Wire Addition Far side slag and wire treatment
Alloy Shoot No samples, bulk alloy additions
All of the sampling locations that were used to gather samples were taken from the flow pattern of
one porous plug.
28
Figure 8: The LMF hood design at Nucor Tuscaloosa, including sampling locations. [123]
To be able to collect molten steel samples throughout the process at the LMF, several
different sampling techniques were used at different locations across the top of the ladle. The focus
was placed on developing a multi-depth sampling device that controlled the depth at which the
samples were taken. The sampler design is shown below in Figure 9. The validation of this sampler
design was completed in the previous work, Pitts-Baggett et al. [124]. The amount of argon
pressure needed to maintain the back pressure for controlling the filling of liquid steel is calculated
via Equation 16.
(a) (b)
Figure 9: Cross sectional (a) and full view (b) of the multi-depth sampler
.
Metal carrier Paperboard tube
Non-splash
refractory
Lollipop sample
molds
Refractory plug
29
𝑃𝑘𝑃𝑎 = 𝜌𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑔ℎ𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔 + 𝜌𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑔ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 (16)
Values used for calculations:
𝜌𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔 = 3100 k𝑔/𝑚3 [125] 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑆1(ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙) = 0.31 𝑚
𝜌𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 7000 k𝑔/𝑚3 [125] 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑆2(ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙) = 0.91 𝑚
𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (ℎ𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔) = 0.23 𝑚 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑆3(ℎ𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙) = 1.52 𝑚
g = 9.81 m/s2
Due to the size and weight of these samplers, the location was limited, as discussed
previously in Pitts-Baggett et al. A picture of the stir lance arm apparatus used with the sample
tube attached is shown in Figure 10. The location also required the ability to have a consistent
depth into the ladle even when selected test heats were not ran consecutively. This was
accomplished through Human Machine Interface (HMI) programming, after the desired depth and
the argon purge time was acquired.
30
Figure 10: Stir lance arm used with sample tube attached.
The LMF process was divided up into five key process steps. These steps were roughly 10-
15 minutes apart depending on the total LMF processing time of the particular heat. The key
process steps were heat arrival/start (S), after alloying (A), after desulphurization/the start of pre-
rinse (R), prior to Ca treatment/end of pre-rinse (C), and after the end of post rinse/ end of heat
(E). This is depicted in Figure 11. These letters will be used throughout the study to denote the
location and timing of the sampling.
31
Figure 11: Key process sampling locations. [124]
The multi-depth samples were taken using the stir lance system at NSTI. This located the
samples to be collected on the downward side of the stir flow pattern. This sampling system
allowed for the ability to gain samples at roughly 0.15 m (6 inches), 0.76 m (30 inches), and 1.37
m (54 inches) simultaneously in the ladle. During the collection of these samples, additional
samples were taken. These included a robot sample and temperature at NSTI’s normal operational
sampling location, as well as four slag samples. The slag samples were taken with a 3-prong
sampler starting at the edge of the stir eye going out roughly 0.30 m (12 inches) from the eye. The
sample taken on the opposite side of the ladle from the 3-prong sampler, ‘Far’, was taken near the
location of the multi-depth sampling area. This was completed to see variation at the eye versus
the bulk slag in the ladle during various processing steps. The method of slag sampling used at
NSTI by use of metal pipe was validated previously by Grip et al. [126]
ANALYSIS METHODS
The slag samples collected were prepared at the NSTI lab, and XRF analysis was
performed using a Bruker S2 Ranger, XRF Instrument to determine the composition of the slag.
The components analyzed included: CaO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MnO, SO3, SiO2, and TiO2. An example
32
XRF spectrum is shown in Figure 12. Chemistry analysis for all the steel samples were analyzed
by using a Thermofisher 4460 scientific spectrometer.
Figure 12: Example Bruker S2 Ranger XRF spectrum analysis.
Automated Feature Analysis (AFA) analysis in an ASPEX Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) was performed on all steel samples for inclusion information. A 50 mm2 area is scanned
by the electron beam. When an inclusion is detected, the size of the inclusion as well as the
composition is gathered. The composition is determined by Energy Dispersive spectroscopy
(EDS). Each individual inclusion’s data is collected, along with pictures of the inclusions for
further investigation. The ternary compositional diagrams generated from the inclusions measured
by the AFA process are used for visual observations of the inclusion composition and distribution
throughout the process. These diagrams aid in determining the modification range of the
inclusions. Examples of these analyses can be seen below in Figure 13. These are shown in sets to
depict what a modified, under-modified, and over-modified heat can look like using AFA analysis.
The under modified diagram shows alumina based inclusions that are not completely Ca treated
33
(tail extension from the spinel region, Mg-Al). The over modified ternary shows inclusions shifted
towards the Ca corner of the ternary. This correlates to the formation of CaS, which are also
deemed harmful in clean steel applications and castability. Ideal target conditions are also depicted
in the modified ternary shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Example ternaries depicting different modifications. [57]
MODELING TECHNIQUE FOR SEGREGATION OF MN IN ARGON PURGED SAMPLER
To evaluate the variation seen when using an argon purged sampling technique, ANSYS
Fluent © 17.1 was used to model the segregation present during solidificaiton. ANSYS Fluent©
is one of the most-powerful computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software tool commercially
available. The sample dimensions are 35 mm diameter and 12 mm thick. The materials
surrounding the sample are stainless steel chill plates (4 mm), and a circular ceramic to form the
sample shape. Images of the sample assembly are shown below in Figure 14. The chemistry used
is presented in Table 3.
34
(a) (b)
Figure 14: Images of the sample side-profile view (a) and top view (b).
Table 3: Chemistry used for HSLA Steels.
C Mn S Si Al Nb Ti
0.065 1.1 0.007 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.012
The material parameters used in the ANSYS’s Fluent © 17.1 software, including
parameters for the elements of concerns, are shown in Table 4, as well as thermo-physical
properties of the HSLA steel shown in Table 5. Since density is a function of temperature, the
density for the bulk steel was set up to be a piecewise-linear function using six different data points.
Figure 15 is a chart that shows the data points that were used to construct the piecewise-linear
function for the bulk steel density changes throughout the simulation. This chart used the chemistry
data located in Table 3.
Table 4: Material Parameters used for the modeling conditions. [127] [128]
Material
Molecular weight
(kg/kg.mol)
Slope of Liquidus
Line (oC/wt%)/100
Partition
Coefficient
Diffusion in
Solid (m2/s)
Mn 55 -6.25 0.77 2.43E-13
S 32 -8.9 0.1 1.00E-12
Table 5: Thermo-physical properties of HSLA steel. [127] [128]
Material Density
(kg/m3)
Specific Heat
(Cp-J/kg-K)
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m-K)
Viscosity
(kg/m-s)
Steel (HSLA) see chart 800 23 0.003
35
Figure 15: Chart of density vs temperature for bulk HSLA steel. [127]
6900
7000
7100
7200
7300
7400
7500
7600
7700
7800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Den
sity
Kg/m
3
Temperature (C)
Density vs Temperature for HSLA Steel
36
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SLAG EVOLUTION – TRANSIENT SLAGS
To study the variation in slag composition at the stir eye of the slag layer versus the bulk
slag layer, slag samples were taken at four different locations throughout the ladle. These locations
include the three prong sampling starting on the edge of the stir eye (‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ where ‘1’ is
closest to the eye), and a sample from the opposite side of the ladle farthest away from the eye,
labeled as ‘Far’. As expected, the stir eye location in the slag layer has a lot of variation across all
elements compared to the ‘Far’ side of the ladle. This is especially seen in early sampling times
within the heat due to the vigorous stir used for desulfurization. Also, due to the high stir rates
early in the process the slag at the eye is the liquid portion of the slag, whereas the far side of the
ladle is more representative of the bulk slag. This can be seen in Table 6 due to the variability seen
in the composition especially near the eye.
Table 6: Slags from RSI1 from the ‘S’ sampling time.
Named Location MgO % Al2O3 % SiO2 % CaO % MnO % FeO % SO3 % B3
Eye Edge 5.09 31.77 2.94 56.12 2.00 2.04 0.61 1.62
5" from eye 4.83 29.77 3.90 53.72 3.38 2.91 0.42 1.60
10" from eye 4.90 29.90 3.73 54.46 3.33 2.65 0.41 1.62
Far Side of
Ladle 5.22 31.50 4.29 54.12 3.29 3.01 0.43 1.51
The slag trends appear to stabilize and become more uniform after different processes
within the ladle. An example of this is shown in Figure 16. This heat followed an ideal stir practice
pattern at NSTI, and resulted in a stabilized optimum basicity (1.5-1.7 B3) after approximately 10
minutes into the heat. This does not mean that the slag did not change after reaching optimum
37
basicity. However, as shown in the charts the final two samples (C and E) are almost identical
which alludes to a low MnO and FeO (a “good” slag) prior to wire since there was no change in
the slag after the Ca wire addition. Note: Error bars are included for the ‘S’ sample type in Figure
16. Table 7 shows the calculated error for range of each element of interest used in this study.
Figure 16: Slag evolution trends for heat RSI3.’S’- Start, ‘A’- Alloy, ‘R’- Pre-rinse, ‘C’- Ca Treatment, ‘E’- End.
Table 7: Calculated XRF measurements error for elements of interest.
29.5
30.5
31.5
32.5
33.5
34.5
35.5
36.5
Eye
Edge
6" from
eye
12" from
eye
Far Side
of Ladle
%
Al2O3
S
A
R
C
E
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Eye
Edge
6" from
eye
12"
from
eye
Far
Side of
Ladle%
SO3
S
A
R
C
E
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Eye
Edge
6" from
eye
12" from
eye
Far Side
of Ladle
%
MnO
S
A
R
C
E1.400
1.450
1.500
1.550
1.600
1.650
1.700
Eye
Edge
6" from
eye
12"
from
eye
Far Side
of Ladle
%
B3
S
A
R
C
E
Element Error
CaO 1.447
Al2O3 0.618
SiO2 0.071
MgO 0.166
MnO 0.005
FeO 0.028
SO3 0.030
TiO2 0.007
B3 0.009
38
It was also seen that when the established LMF stir practices cannot be followed, the slag
evolution does not reach optimum basicity as quickly. An example of non-ideal stir practices and
the effects it has on slags is presented in Figure 17. The alumina present in the slag has much more
variation due to a longer high stir time, which allowed for excessive reoxidation of the heat. This
heat required approximately 34 kg (75 lbs) more Al, and 90.7 kg (200 lbs) of slag deoxidant. This
directly impacts the B3 chart.
Figure 17: Slag evolution of heat RSI4 with non-ideal stir pattern.
When evaluating heat RSI4 numerically (Table 8), it is seen that the additions to the heat
during the process, does affect the slag composition. (NOTE: This heat only had 4 sets of samples
compared to the other heats. The ‘R’ and ‘C’ samples on this heat are the same.) This heat had a
considerable amount of slag deoxidants and Al additions compared to the other heats analyzed.
Figure 18 shows the stir pattern for this heat where the blue line is the flow from the primary
porous plug and the grey line is the flow from the secondary porous plug. The reason for the
extended high stir is directly related to the sulfur removal. This heat had a very low desulfurization
rate, which slowed down the sulfur removal. This will be discussed in more detail later on.
25
28
31
34
37
40
Eye
Edge
6" from
eye
12" from
eye
Far Side
of Ladle
%
Al2O3
S
A
R
C
E 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Eye
Edge
6" from
eye
12" from
eye
Far Side
of Ladle
B3
B3
S
A
R
C
E
39
Table 8: Slag Data from heat RSI4.
Step Time
(Min)
Al2O3
%
SiO2
%
CaO
%
MnO
%
FeO
%
SO3
% B3
Lime
(kg)
Al
(kg)
Slag
Deox
(kg)
HC
FeMn
(kg)
S 0 32.59 3.68 54.37 1.94 1.80 0.56 1.50 680 334 1361
A 14 36.66 2.57 53.72 0.41 0.63 1.49 1.37 272 51 91 354
C 28 33.06 2.95 56.84 0.34 0.57 1.42 1.58 10 68
E 38 34.08 2.36 56.50 0.17 0.30 1.37 1.55
Figure 18: Stir pattern for RSI4.
The slag changes not only compositionally, but it also changes in its physical appearance
during the process. To observe the progression of slag color, slag pieces were set aside on heat
RSI3. As the heat progresses the slag goes from a black glassy texture to a creamy thicker texture.
The image in Figure 19 shows the color change as well as the texture change throughout the heat.
The process steps are labeled underneath each physical piece. The compositions for each process
step is shown in Table 9.
40
.
Figure 19: Changes in slag color from heat RSI3 at each process step.
Table 9: Slag compositions for RSI3 SF, AF, RF, CF, and EF.
Sample MgO % Al2O3 % SiO2% CaO% MnO% FeO% SO3% B3
RSI3 SF 4.58 32.2 4.97 53.7 2.66 2.74 0.58 1.45
RSI3 AF 5.51 35.2 3.14 55.2 0.45 0.65 1.20 1.44
RSI3 RF 5.25 35.4 2.55 55.1 0.38 0.39 1.14 1.45
RSI3 CF 5.21 35.3 2.19 56.2 0.15 0.38 1.14 1.5
RSI3 EF 5.24 35.4 2.45 56.4 0.16 0.69 1.08 1.49
To compare the color and texture variations across the ladle, a sample set from SI3 was
taken to compare the ‘A’ sample. This was also completed to compare the differences in color for
a Si-bearing (SI3) heat versus an RSi heat (RSI3). The ‘A’ sample was picked due to timing within
the heat. It is the slag sample set that has the most variation after time at the LMF. As seen below,
there is a slight color variation between the samples taken near the eye versus the sample taken on
the far side of the ladle.
Figure 20: Changes in appearance variations across width of the ladle.
41
This color variation is due to the difference in MnO and FeO contents shown in Table 10.
Cooling rate could also have an effect on the visual differences in the slags, a faster cooling rate
retains more glassy phases. The ‘Far’ side slag has the ability to cool faster than the three prong
sampler due to how the sample is collected. The data for the set of slags across the ladle are show
in Table 10. This shows a good example of how the same B3 value can look visually different due
to other elements being present. The glassy slag (‘Far’) appears to be much darker than the other
slags, while the actual FeO + MnO levels are lower.
Table 10: Slag compositions for SI3 A1, A2, A3, AF
Sample MgO% Al2O3% SiO2% CaO% MnO% FeO% SO3% B3
SI3 A1 5.59 28.3 5.24 56.0 0.59 0.83 0.88 1.67
SI3 A2 5.15 27.6 4.95 53.1 0.62 0.89 0.83 1.63
SI3 A3 5.41 28.5 5.26 55.5 0.6 0.85 0.87 1.65
SI3 AF 5.49 28.6 5.28 55.9 0.36 0.59 0.94 1.65
X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was also performed on the pictured slag samples to
determine if there were any variations in phases present. This was completed using a Bruker D8
Discover with a Co-k alpha x-ray source. The samples were run at 40 kV and 35 mA. A Vantec
500 2 dimensional detector was used for data collection. The results from these tests are plotted
below in Figure 21 and Figure 22. The remaining results tested from this sample data set were
contaminated (RSI3 RF and SI3 AF) or non-crystalline (RSI3 EF), therefore producing no results.
The differences in results are believed to be due to cooling, as well as some compositional changes
throughout the process. Samples from SI3 A1, A2, and A3 showed a Ca-Al phase, Figure 21. The
test was unable to pick up other traditionally seen phases. These samples were all taken at the same
time with the three prong sampling device approximately 10 minutes into the heat. The slags taken
from RSI3 were all ‘Far’ side slags taken at different processing steps. The sample for RSI3 CF,
which is taken just before wire treatment, also showed to have just a Ca-aluminate phase. However
42
for RSI3 AF, taken after alloy addition and during desulfurization, phases commonly associated
with slag were present such as: Periclase, Lime, Calcium Aluminate, Magnetite, and
Brownmilenrite (Figure 22). A study that was completed by Vlcek, et al. study showed that cooling
also had a major role in results produced from XRD analysis. [129] The XRD analysis was
determined to be not relevant to this study, due to the fact that the temperature at which the samples
were taken, the slags were 90% liquid, so the phases present in the XRD analysis were most likely
formed during cooling.
Figure 21: XRD analysis of LMF slags.
43
Figure 22: XRD Analysis of RSI3 AF.
To take a more comprehensive view at all the heats, all the data from the heats were plotted
using the ‘Far’ side ladle slag for each process step. After plotting all the heats together, it was
noticed there were some significant differences between Si-bearing heats and RSi heats. Starting
with B3, the charts in Figure 23 where split into heats that are Si-bearing, and heats that are RSi.
The charts show a considerable difference between the progressions of slags for the two different
types of heats. It is seen that the Si-bearing heats have a much higher rate of change between
samples, whereas the RSi heats show little change throughout the LMF process. The ability for
desulfurization based on slag B3 will be discussed later.
44
(a) (b)
Figure 23: B3 comparison between Si-bearing (a) and RSi (b).
By breaking out the components of the B3 calculations, it is easier to determine which
variables have the most influence on the change in Si-bearing heats versus RSi heats. Figure 24
shows the differences in alumina content; however, this is understood further when looking at
Figure 25. Alumina trends lower on Si-bearing heats; however, SiO2 is always higher for Si-
bearing heats. The increase in SiO2 in the slag when more Si is present follows metallurgical
fundamentals. Due to the competitive deoxidation between Si and Al, the addition of Si to an
aluminum killed steel allows for more Al to remain in the heat without the need for further addition
when reoxidation is present.
45
(a) (b)
Figure 24: Alumina concentration in slag comparison for Si-bearing (a) versus RSi (b).
Figure 25: Silicon oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats. (Dashed line heats are Si-bearing)
It is also noted that the B3 values for Si-bearing heats are higher than for the RSi heats.
Since operators add CaO additions based on visual observations of slags, a FactSage calculation
was completed to see if the Si-bearing grades may be liquid at lower temperatures. If Si-bearing
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S A R C E
% SiO2
SI4
RSI4
SI3
SI2
RSIOT
SI1*
RSI3
RSI2
RSI1
46
grades were more liquid at lower temperatures than the slag could have a more liquid appearance
to the operator prompting them to add more CaO. Figure 26 shows that there is not a big difference
in the % liquid for RSi (red line), and Si-bearing (blue line) when plotted versus temperature. The
reason for the higher basicity levels on Si-bearing heats will require more investigation at NSTI.
Figure 26: Comparison of Si-bearing slags vs RSi slags.
Figure 27 shows a trend for CaO percentage. All of the heats follow a general trend
throughout the process. However, it was noticed that in Figure 28 and Figure 29 the dotted green
line (SI1*) has a significant more MnO and FeO present early in the heat. This is indicative of
excessive EAF slag carryover. The problems associated with this is discussed further in the effects
of furnace slag carry over.
47
Figure 27: Ca oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats.
Figure 28: Manganese Oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats.
48
Figure 29: Iron Oxide concentration in slag comparison for all heats.
SULFIDE CAPACITY AND PREDICTING FINAL SULFUR
One of the major mechanisms of sulfur removal is dependent on the slag. The slag is the
only phase that can remove sulfur from the steel. As shown previously, the incoming slag has a
major role in total sulfur removal. To be able to see how much sulfur has been transferred to the
slag, a plot of the sulfide percentage in the slag during the various LMF processing steps is shown
in Figure 30. It is seen that there is difference in the final amount of sulfur captured by the slag
from each heat. The incoming sulfur content of the steel can play a role in how much sulfur is
captured by the slag, especially if the incoming sulfur content in the steel is low (< 0.03 %). It can
also be seen that as the sulfur is removed from the steel, the slag increases in sulfur concentration.
This can be seen in Figure 31.
49
Figure 30: Sulfur concentration of ‘Far’ side slag throughout key LMF process steps.
Figure 31: Visualization of sulfur transfer from the steel to the slag versus time from RSI2.
Several researchers have developed sulfide capacity (Cs) equations for slags. These are
typically shown as the log (Cs). These equations do not calculate the amount of sulfur that the slag
can contain, rather they depict how well a slag can capture sulfur. The lower the log (Cs) value is,
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
S A R C E
% S
O3
SO3
SI4
RSI4
SI3
SI2
RSIOT
SI1*
RSI3
RSI2
RSI1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
% S
O3
in t
he
slag
% S
in t
he
stee
l
Time (minutes)
S SO3
50
the more efficient the slag is at capturing sulfur. As shown previously in Equations 5 and 6, two
different methods for calculating the sulfide capacity using optical basicity (Λ) were provided. A
comparison of the two methods is shown in Figure 32. As shown, the results are fairly similar for
the RSI heats with the exception of the open tap (RSIOT) heat. However, there is a decent amount
of variation for Si-bearing heats. To mimic the graph in Figure 2 using the data set in this study, it
was seen that at higher basicity levels of the slag obtained from the two methods were agreeable.
These results aligned relatively well with Figure 2 for CaO-Al2O3 slags.
Figure 32: Comparing Young and Somerville’s equations for sulfide capacity.
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
SI2 SI1* RSIOT SI3 SI4 RSI1 RSI4 RSI3 RSI2
Lo
g (
Cs)
Sulfide Capacity
Young Somerville
51
Figure 33: Sulfide capacity versus B3 using Young and Somerville’s equations.
The sulfide capacity for the various heats studied does not vary greatly. However, to see
which equation lines up closer with this study a table is provided that ranked the heats in order of
the most sulfur removed from the steel, the most sulfur captured by the slag, as well as the Young’s
and Somerville’s sulfide capacity rankings are shown in Table 11. Since there are so many
variables that are required for ideal sulfur removal in the steel and capture in the slag, this ranking
system does not reveal the entire picture. However, by comparing the heats with the most sulfur
capture in the slag to the ranking of the best sulfide capacity, it is seen that Young’s model is more
closely aligned to the data that was seen in this study. It shows better agreement with Si-bearing
heats than Somerville’s equation.
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.8 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85
Lo
g (
Cs)
Optical Basicity
Sulfide Capacity
Young Somerville
52
Table 11: Ranking of heats analyzed for sulfur removal and capture.
Most
Sulfur
removed
from heat
Best
Sulfur
Capture
in Slag
Best Sulfide
Capacity
(Somerville)
Best
Sulfide
Capacity
(Young)
SI4 SI4 SI2 SI1*
SI1* RSIOT SI1* SI2
RSI4 RSI4 RSIOT SI4
RSI3 SI2 SI3 RSI1
RSI2 SI1* SI4 SI3
SI2 RSI3 RSI1 RSI4
SI3 RSI2 RSI4 RSI3
RSI1 SI3 RSI3 RSI2
RSIOT RSI1 RSI2 RSIOT
To be able to develop a sulfur model, the ability to predict the final sulfur is key. To be
able to predict a final sulfur value, the ability to accurately predict the sulfur equilibrium is key. It
was also noticed that when calculating the Ls value, the optical basicity of the slag had a strong
influence on the calculations. The values used to calculate the optical basicity for this study is
shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Optical Basicity of slag components used. [40]
Oxide Optical Basicity
CaO 1.00
MgO 0.78
TiO2 0.61
Al2O3 0.61
MnO 0.59
FeO 0.51
SiO2 0.48
Fruehan incorporated the weight of the steel, sulfur distribution ratio, and the initial sulfur,
% Si as shown previously in Equation 10 to calculate the sulfur equilibrium. However, it was
noticed that the calculated sulfur equilibrium on certain heats predicted a sulfur value above the
actual final sulfur. These were seen on heats that contained Si. By using Equation 17 with
53
experimental data, a plot was created for each heat. An example of this is shown in Figure 34,
where a trend line was added to be able to determine the best R2 value for the data set while varying
the %Seq.
𝑙𝑛 ((%𝑆−%𝑆𝑒𝑞
%𝑆𝑖− %𝑆𝑒𝑞) = −𝑘′𝑡 (17)
where %S is the sulfur at time (t),
%Seq is the sulfur equilibrium,
%Si is the initial sulfur content,
k’ is the rate constant.
The slope of the trend line is the rate constant, k’. The value k’ is equivalent to the rate, k,
multiplied by the area of the slag/steel interface, and divided by the volume of the steel. Since the
area of the slag/steel interface and the volume of the steel are assumed to be the same for each
heat, k’ will be used as the desulfurization rate. The k’ and R2 value changed depending on the
%Seq used. These values are compared in Table 13 for the calculated and the experimental values.
The experimental k’ values will be used as the desulfurization rate.
Figure 34: Sulfur equilibrium prediction plot for RSI2.
y = -0.1189x
R² = 0.9719
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ln(S
-Seq
/Si-
Seq
)
Time (minutes)
54
Table 13: Sulfur equilibrium and rate constant comparison between experimental and Fruehan.
It was determined that none of the Si-bearing heats were able to be predicted by Equation
10 as shown in Table 14, because of a high [%Seq] prediction. Therefore, to be able to predict all
Si-bearing heats as well as to gain a more consistent time step for all heats a new equation was
developed. These equations are shown in Equation 18 and 19. This equation incorpoarates the %Si
content of the steel to modify the [%Seq] for each heat. The results of this equation as well as the
predicted results from Equation 10 are plotted against the actual final %S content in the steel shown
in Figure 35.
(18)
(19)
Experimental Fruehan
Heat name %Seq R2
k' %Seq R2
k'
RSI1 0.0020 0.85 -0.09 0.0021 0.84 -0.095
RSI2 0.0016 0.97 -0.12 0.001 0.83 -0.087
RSI3 0.0015 0.98 -0.11 0.0015 0.98 -0.11
SI1* 0.0002 0.98 -0.05 0.0038 0.1 -0.039
RSIOT 0.0037 0.99 -0.076 0.0022 0.85 -0.042
SI2 0.0043 0.97 -0.14 0.0069 -0.21 -0.003
SI3 0.0013 0.95 -0.175 0.0034 -0.22 -0.004
RSI4 0.0027 0.99 -0.083 0.0034 0.99 -0.091
SI4 0.0004 0.99 -0.067 0.0046 0.12 -0.066
55
Table 14: Comparison of actual %Sf to Turkdogan’s equation and Equation 18.
Heat Actual
%Sf
Turkdogan
%Sf
Time Step
Predicted
Pitts-Baggett
%Sf
Time Step
Predicted
RSI1 0.0023 0.00231 12 0.00236 10
RSI2 0.0017 0.00168 10 0.00154 9
RSI3 0.0016 0.001612 16 0.00165 11
SI1* 0.0036 -------- -------- 0.00352 12
RSIOT 0.0038 0.00386 6 0.00392 6
SI2 0.0040 -------- -------- 0.00397 11
SI3 0.0014 -------- -------- 0.00121 8
RSI4 0.0049 0.00469 9 0.00488 8
SI4 0.0036 -------- -------- 0.0038 8
Figure 35: Comparison to actual final sulfur concentration versus different models.
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
RSI1 RSI2 RSI3 SI1* RSIOT SI2 SI3 RSI4 SI4
% S
f
Prediction versus Actual %Sf
Actual %Sf Turkdogan %Sf Pitts-Baggett %Sf
56
Some of the data acquired in this step will be used to validate our recently developed CFD
and reaction kinetics modeling approach [120] [135] [137] that can be used to predict the
desulfurization kinetics in LMF under various process conditions.
PROCESS AFFECTS ON DESULFURIZATION AND MODEL
As discussed, desulfurization has several key components that are required to allow sulfur
to be removed quickly. Those items are:
Low oxygen potential in both the steel and the slag
Aluminum to drive the desulfurization equation.
High temperature
Fluid slag
High mixing conditions between steel and slag interface
Desulfurization rate is highly effected by these parameters, and which can also affect how clean
the steel is in the final processing steps. Stirring conditions are critical. If the stirring conditions in
the ladle are not maximized, ability for the slag/steel interface mixing will be reduced. This will
also reduce the ability for the steel to reduce sulfur. If the sulfur remains high in the steel, the
effects of Ca treatment will be diminished and potentially harmful due to the formation of CaS.
The desulfurization rate was calculated using experimental data in Equation 21. After the
desulfurization rate constant was calculated for each heat as shown previously in Table 13, it was
plotted against the variables listed. The initial conditions of the process are typically designed for
desulfurization. After the sulfur drops below a threshold, which can vary by process parameters
such as sulfide capacity in the slag, slag/steel interaction, oxygen presence, etc., the removal slows
down significantly as shown in Figure 44 and Figure 45
57
Total sulfur removed, is the summation of all the sulfur removed from the steel throughout
the processing time, is also important. It is related to several similar components as desulfurization
rate. However, the total sulfur removal is more dependent on the incoming sulfur content, slag
composition, as well as on the processing time. Total sulfur removed is used to correlate certain
variables.
Starting with tap ppm as shown in Figure 36, there was no direct correlation to the
desulfurization rate for tap ppm. This was expected since the practices at the LMF use Al addition
practices at tap to remove oxygen / “kill” the heat upon arrival. This chart does not depict the
dissolved oxygen of the heat which is controlled by the Al/Al2O3 equilibrium, and the oxygen level
imposed by the slag/metal interface. The dissolved oxygen in the heat does effect desulfurization.
Figure 36: The effects of tap oxygen (ppm) on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal.
Since Al is added at tap to deoxidize the steel, the arrival Al can depict how much tap
oxygen as well as additional oxygen introduced by the Mn tap addition is present. Figure 37 shows
that the R2 value for arrival Al does play a role in the desulfurization rate, as well as the significance
R² = 0.0441
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Des
ulf
uri
zati
on R
ate,
k
Tap Oxygen (ppm)
Tap Oxygen vs Desulfurization Rate
58
factor in the F-test results calculates to be 0.043. To show significance through the F-test the value
needs to be below a 0.15. This can be logically followed since the desulfurization equation does
require Al to be present as shown in Equation 2. Therefore, since the heat typically arrives at a
high temperature, and the process starts with a high stir rate, having a higher arrival Al can help
increase the desulfurization rate. The higher Al present ensures a lower dissolved oxygen which
in turn promotes desulfurization. FactSage data was used to show the decrease in oxygen
concentration with an increased Al wt%, Figure 38.
Figure 37: The effects of arrival Al % on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal.
R² = 0.6465
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Des
ulf
uri
zati
on R
ate
% Arrival Aluminum
Arrival Al% vs Desulfurization Rate
59
Figure 38: FactSage calculation of reduced oxygen ppm with increased Aluminum wt%.
Turkdogan showed that the desulfurization rate constant was directly correlated to the stir
energy. [43] Therefore, the results presented in Figure 39 were expected. The F-test value for
significance, 0.0049 along with a p-value of 0.035 aligned well with the R2 value shown in the
chart.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30%
Oxygen
PP
M
Aluminum wt%
60
Figure 39: The effects of stir rate on the desulfurization rate.
Desulfurization reactions happen faster at higher temperatures due to the slag being more
fluid at higher temperatures. FactSage shows that desulfurization is more favorable at lower
temperatures; however, the kinetic slag effects prove to have a much greater effect than the
difference in ΔG as a function of temperature. The sulfur equilibrium is effected by the incoming
temperature through the partition coefficient, LS. By plotting the incoming temperature versus the
%Seq a correlation is seen, Figure 40. This was also confirmed by the results from conducting a
regression analysis which showed the F-test significance to be 0.077 as well as a p-value of 0.069.
The higher temperatures allow for a slightly larger chemistry range for fluid slag which can have
a direct impact as well. Higher temperatures are great for sulfur removal; however, they can have
a negative impact on refractories if the slag is not saturated with lime. Therefore, higher is not
always better.
R² = 0.7006
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.21
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5
Des
ulf
uri
zati
on R
ate
Initial Stir Rate (m3/s)
Stir Rate vs Desulfurization Rate
61
Figure 40: The effects of arrival temperature (K) on sulfur equilibrium.
As stated, a higher temperature can relate to a slightly wider range for a fluid slag. Figure
41 shows the CaO-Al2O3 phase diagram. The steel making temperature range is designated by the
red dotted lines, as well as where the B3 ranges from this data set lie.
Figure 41 Ca – Al Phase Diagram comparing temperatures B3 ratios.
This study shows that a more fluid arrival slag will help with increased sulfur removal.
Figure 42 is the first chart that shows a linear correlation between total sulfur removal, and the
R² = 0.492
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
0.0030
0.0040
0.0050
1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
% S
eq
Temperature, K
Arrival Temperature vs % Seq
62
arrival slag B3. This observation is repeated in the regression analysis showed a 0.021 F-test
significance as well as a p-value of 0.0033.
Figure 42: Effects of arrival B3 on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal (OT heat excluded)
It was also seen that the incoming slag B3 aids in better inclusion capture. When plotting
the inclusion index for the prewire sample (‘C’) versus the incoming B3, it is shown to have a
relatively significant R2 value. This is shown in Figure 43. The F-test results showed this to also
be significant at 0.111 for the significance with a p-value of 0.347; however, it was not as strong
as some of the other F-test conducted.
R² = 0.6172
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
To
tal S
ulf
ur
Rem
oved
Arrival B3
Arrival B3 vs Total Sulfur Removed
63
Figure 43: Incoming B3 versus Prewire (‘C’) inclusion index.
To investigate the removal of sulfur throughout the heat, the chemistry of samples taken
by the robot, was plotted against the sampling time for that particular heat. As shown in Figure 44,
the initial desulfurization removal rate is fairly similar for RSi heats. One heat that does show to
be different is the dotted line heat, RSIOT. This heat was the only Open Tap (OT) heat sampled.
This heat also arrived with the lowest sulfur value sampled. This was due to the scrap mix being
used at the EAF during that particular sampling time, and not related to the heat being open tapped.
The other heats were able to take advantage of the block tap additions, which allowed the start of
the desulfurization process prior to arrival at the LMF. However, it is also seen that the arrival
sulfur varies by a considerable amount (0.02-0.045 wt %). This is due to the scrap mix being used.
Another thing to note, is that the processing time for these heats also ranged from 38 minutes to
70 minutes. This can also effect the total sulfur removal, but it also shows how important quick
desulfurization is to the LMF process. As the chart shows, the desulfurization rate (slope of the
line) happens quickly within the first 10 - 20 minutes of the heat, then it plateaus off.
64
Figure 44: Sulfur content in the steel throughout processing time for RSi.
To evaluate at the effects of Si on the initial desulfurization rate (slope of the line) as well
as total sulfur removed the Si-bearing heats were plotted separately, Figure 45. It was noticed that
these plots follow a similar pattern as the RSi plots. These heats also saw a broad range of arrival
sulfur levels, 0.048 – 0.027%, as well as a slightly wide range for processing time 36 – 57 minutes.
However, there was a significant amount of variation in the individual plots. Therefore, a further
investigation of what may be causing this variation was completed.
65
Figure 45: Sulfur content in the steel throughout processing time for Si-bearing.
EAF slag carryover can play a major role on steel cleanliness. This will be discussed more
in depth later on in this study. Nevertheless, one way furnace slag carry over effects cleanliness is
by the increased oxygen content in the slag which ultimately affects the ability for the steel bath
to remove sulfur. Heat SI1* had a considerable amount of extra furnace slag carryover, and the
effects of retarded desulfurization rate can be seen in Figure 45. It can also be seen that both SI1*
and SI4 had a significantly higher arrival sulfur than most of the heats investigated. SI4 ended with
a similar sulfur level as SI1*; however, the processing time was 25% longer for SI1* which
allowed it to reduce to similar levels as SI4.
SI2 had the lowest arrival temperature of the Si-bearing heats, as well as the lowest
incoming MnO% content. It arrived at the LMF only 25 degrees higher than its final exit
temperature compared the other Si-bearing heats which were at least 75 degrees higher. This heat
also started with a high B3 (1.7) which is not ideal for desulfurization.
Heat SI3 was an ideal heat in terms of desulfurization and sulfur removal. Due to its low
starting sulfur percent, the amount of total sulfur removal was not as high as the other heats.
66
However, the rate of removal was very good. This heat also had a 166.5 kg (367 lbs) calcium-
aluminate addition at tap that heats SI4 and SI1* did not have. This allowed for an arrival slag
lower in harmful oxide components such as MnO and FeO by dilution. The comparison of several
processing variables is shown in Table 15.
Table 15: Si-bearing heat data related to desulfurization rates.
Heat Desulfurization
Rate, k’ Arrival
Temp (K)
Sulfur
Removed
Arrival
B3
Arrival
Al%
Arrival
MnO %
Arrival
FeO %
SI3 0.175 1876 0.026 1.58 0.027 2.47 2.25
SI2 0.14 1842 0.029 1.70 0.045 2.1 2.54
SI4 0.067 1879 0.045 1.31 0.097 2.85 2.85
SI1* 0.05 1892 0.045 1.26 0.051 6.35 3.98
Since the primary data set of this study shows only a small portion of the heats produced,
a data set of over 2600 heats was compiled to compare the final sulfur of RSi heats versus Si-
bearing heats. The data set encompasses all ranges of grades, as well as various different arrival
sulfur levels due to various different scrap mixes used during the date range. The data shows that
for Si-bearing heats an average final sulfur was 0.0032 leaving the LMF, and for RSi heats the
average final sulfur was 0.0047. The standard deviation was 0.0014 and 0.0016 respectively.
Without process upsets, it is seen that the Si-bearing grades reduce sulfur more efficiently.
EAF Slag Carryover
Every heat at the LMF has some slag carryover from the EAF, estimated 453.6 kg (1000
lbs). Depending on the time in the life cycle of the tap hole the slag carryover amounts can very
some. Also, operational anomalies can cause more slag carryover as well. EAF slag contains
elevated and variable concentrations of oxygen mainly in the form of FeO and MnO. Table 16
show the difference in a typical EAF slag versus LMF target slags. Looking at FeO and MnO
67
variation in EAF slags from NSTI, over 2700 slags were compiled and plotted in Figure 46. This
shows the variation in MnO from 2.0 - 8.7%, and 13.5 – 55.2% for FeO. The variation in the
incoming reducible oxides amounts has an effect on the deoxidants usage that are required at the
LMF. In terms of desulfurization, the elevated oxygen concentrations are harmful. This will result
in a higher consumption of Al for alumina formation, which will also slow down the
desulfurization rate. This ultimately slows down all the steps of the LMF process, and can
negatively influence the cleanliness of the steel.
Table 16: EAF and LMF slag component comparison.
Composition Carryover EAF Slag Final LMF Target Slag
% MgO 10 5
% CaO 25 55-60
% Al2O3 5 25-35
%SiO2 14 5-8
% MnO 3 < 0.5
% FeO 40 < 0.6
Figure 46: FeO and MnO trending for EAF slags (~2700 heats)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
%M
nO
% F
eO
EAF Slag
FeO MnO
FeO
MnO
68
Investigating the effects of more oxygen present on the LMF process. A series of equations
were used to calculate the Al required. Equation 20 uses the change in oxygen multiplied by the
atomic weight ratio of Al to oxygen in Al2O3. [40] This total is then multiplied by the weight of
the steel ( ). However, since the addition of Al does not product 100% recovery in the steel, an
additional calculation must be completed to know the actual weight needed to recover and maintain
a certain Al concentration (Al spec) in the ladle, Equation 21. [40] The recovery percentage used
in this study is 70%.
𝐴𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = Δ[𝑂]
1000000∗ 1.125 ∗ 𝑀𝑊 (20)
where ∆[O] is the change in oxygen (ppm),
MW is the weight of the steel.
𝐴𝑙 (𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦) = 𝑀𝑊((
Δ[𝑂]
100000∗1.125)+𝐴𝑙 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐)
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 (21)
Using the data from Table 17 with the listed equations, a plot of Al consumption based on
oxygen content is shown in Figure 46. This shows a significant amount of additional Al needed
for additional oxygen present. For a typical heat at NSTI, the tap ppm ranges from 600-1000 ppm.
However, the amount of additional oxygen introduced from furnace slag carryover can vary
significantly based on the amount of furnace slag as well as the percent of FeO and MnO present
in the carryover slag. For example, heat SI1* had a tap ppm of 1074, but the Al consumption was
over 500 kg (1100 lbs). By the chart in Figure 46, this is equivalent to approximately 2500 ppm of
oxygen being present. The EAF slag composition for FeO and MnO was 42% and 2.8%
respectively. SI3 had one of the lowest FeO and MnO EAF slag composition percent at 35% and
2.7% respectively. This heat had a tap ppm of 1110, but its Al consumption was only 327 kg (720
69
lbs) total. This relates to roughly 250 ppm oxygen coming from the furnace slag carryover. Which
is 10 times less than the heat with known additional EAF slag carryover.
Table 17: Parameters used for deoxidation and slag calculations.
Tap Oxygen 900 ppm
Ladle Size 125 Tons
Final Oxygen (LMF) 4 ppm
Aluminum Target 0.03%
Al Required 114 kg
Aluminum Recovery 70%
Al required (70% recovery) 212 kg
Al2O3 to slag 622 kg
Assumed SiO2 7%
Assumed Al2O3 28%
Assumed CaO 59%
Slag Weight 1007 kg
CaO needed for 1.7 B3 268 kg
Figure 47: Al consumption based on oxygen ppm present.
By knowing the total Al addition, the alumina that is sent to the slag layer can also be
calculated, Equation 22. Using the slag composition of a particular heat, the slag mass can also be
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Alu
min
um
Wei
ght
(kg)
Oxygen PPM
Al Required (Kg) Al (with recovery)
70
calculated as well as the CaO addition required to balance the slag to the desired B3 value. This is
shown in Figure 48 for oxygen contents ranging from 600 ppm to 3000 ppm.
𝐴𝑙2𝑂3 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑔 = (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 − (𝑀𝑊 ∗ 𝐴𝑙 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐)) ∗ 1.89 (22)
Figure 48: Weight of related slag components.
INCLUSION EVOLUTION
Sulfur
Thermodynamic tools such as FactSage, depict that inclusions will eventually match the
composition of the slag as the slag and metal approach equilibrium conditions. These are
equilibrium calculations and not time dependent whereas the conditions that exist at the LMF are
rarely at equilibrium, and will only start to approach equilibrium as the heat is processed. To
modify and change the inclusion composition as well as morphology involves time, and hence
requires kinetic consideration.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Wei
ght
(kg)
Al2O3 to slag (Kg) Slag Mass for 28% Al2O3 (Kg) CaO needed for 1.7 B3 (Kg)
71
This study shows that sulfur can act as a barrier to Ca transfer from the slag to the metal
for inclusion modification. For RSi heats, inclusion compositional grouping is known to typically
be very tight or compositional clustered together. A typical inclusion distribution for the ‘A’-‘R’-
‘C’ process steps is shown in Figure 49. The grouping on the sample before wire, ‘C’, shows a
slight spread. However, the grouping only starts to change after the sulfur reaches below a 0.003%.
This heat was only below a 0.003% for 6 minutes keeping the grouping fairly tight. However,
when looking at another RSi heat for the same set of AFA’s, Figure 50, the grouping starts to
spread out starting in the ‘R’ sample. This sample was taken 25 minutes into the heat, leaving 18
minutes of processing time prior to wire treatment. This resulted in a much larger tail towards the
liquid area on the Mg-Al-Ca inclusion plot. This heat was depleted of Al between ‘A’ and ‘R’
sampling which resulted in a slight increase in sulfur between the two samples. Also, this heat had
an excessive amount of arc time which could have superheated the slag causing the slag to be more
fluid. This could have potentially resulted in more slag/steel interaction.
Figure 49: Inclusion pattern for RSi grades. (RSI3)
72
Figure 50: Inclusion pattern for RSi grade – non-typical. (RSI1)
For Si-bearing heats, the grouping is rarely tight. This makes it difficult to determine
correct wire footage for Ca treatment. It also makes it easier to over treat the steel bath. This
was believed to be related to the Ca present in FeSi. The residual Ca present in FeSi can have
an effect on the inclusions especially in a late addition; however, it is also seen that sulfur can
play a role in the groupings as well for Si-bearing heats. This is much more challenging since
typically Si-bearing heats tend to get to low levels of sulfur easier and more rapidly than RSi
heats. An example of a typical Si-bearing AFA with a low sulfur percent is shown in Figure
51. Even though there was a 100 kg (220 lb) FeSi addition after the ‘A’ sample, the tail of
inclusions is very long in comparison to the other FeSi heats that did not desulfurize as low
and as quickly as SI3.
Figure 51: Inclusion pattern for Si-bearing heat (SI3)
73
As discussed previously, EAF carryover slag can have an effect on almost every function
of the LMF process especially when seen in excessive amounts. The heat SI1* as shown in Figure
52, shows a dramatic difference in the inclusion distribution due to the excessive EAF slag
carryover. This heat was very similar to SI3, in how quickly the sulfur depleted from the heat;
however, the amount of excess alumina formation on this heat caused the slag to be very fluid until
just before Ca treatment. This happened even with an excess of over 360 Kg (800 lbs) of lime
added to this heat. This heat had a fairly long process time of 57 minutes. However this heat ended
very clean. This is related to the additional stir time. By comparing this heat (SI1*) to another Si-
bearing heat (SI3) with less total time (38 minutes), the inclusion index for the pre-wire samples
was 4.7 for SI1* versus 13.8 for heat SI3.
Figure 52: Inclusion pattern for SI1*. Effects of furnace slag carryover.
As suggested, a late FeSi addition may play a role in the inclusion tail formation. SI4 never
dipped below the sulfur threshold to create the tail due to slag interaction; however, after each
alloy addition there was a shift in the tail, Figure 53. This shift is not as extreme as the shift that
was seen in the very low sulfur heat SI3; however, it does exist. This shift is closely related to the
residual Ca being added with the FeSi addition.
74
Figure 53: Inclusion pattern for Si-bearing heat with late additions. (SI4)
This study showed that inclusion distributions are affected by different means, it was
desired to plot the inclusion paths on the same chart to see variation. Figure 54 shows the inclusion
evolution broken down by RSi and Si-bearing heats. These charts were created using the AFA
average point for each process step, and connecting to form the lines seen. This figure also includes
some very basic information about the heats listed below it. For RSi grades, the inclusion path is
very dependent on sulfur. Both RSI2 and RSI3 followed the exact same inclusion path, and they
both had similar sulfur values. As the sulfur value increase, the peak of the inclusion path becomes
lower on the chart. The final average point is very similar on both sets of graphs. However, note
that the final average point for Si-bearing grades is closer to the Ca corner of the ternary. Looking
at the Si-bearing heats, the lines overlap very well on three out of four heats. These three heats all
75
have the same % Si (SI2, SI3, and SI4). The red line, SI1*, had a different % Si requirement;
however, this is also the heat that had furnace slag carryover.
Figure 54: Inclusion evolution comparing RSi and Si-bearing heats as well as Sulfur content.
Since sulfur can act as a barrier to Ca transfer from the slag to the steel, knowing the sulfur
percentage in the steel as well as the desulfurization rate is important. As it was shown, a good
desulfurization rate with a high incoming sulfur may not yield the target final % S level that is
needed depending on the processing time allowed. Also, a low incoming sulfur with a poor
removal rate can also be detrimental to the end sulfur target. Another way to evaluate the extent of
slag/metal mixing is the % Mg pickup in the inclusions. This proves to be a good indicator if a
barrier was created that reduces the slag transfer. This barrier is related to the amount of oxygen
in the steel. The higher the oxygen potential the slower the desulfurization reaction. Removing the
oxygen in the steel not only promotes sulfur removal, but also drives the increase in spinel
formation. A typical trend of the % Mg in inclusions throughout a heat can be shown in Figure 55
76
(blue). As the heat progresses % Mg increases due to interaction with the slag as well as the
refractories on the walls of the ladle. After Ca treatment the % Mg declines. This is due to the Ca
eloping the spinel inclusions causing the % Mg to be reduced as well as not being exposed as
frequently to the AFA scan. This trend was very similar on all heats that were analyzed except for
RSI4. The trend for this is also shown Figure 55, grey. As shown in the plots, the trends are very
different. When looking into RSI4, this heat had the least amount of processing time (38 minutes),
and a high incoming sulfur percentage. This heat never received an optimum pre-rinse time due to
the shortened total processing time, and the lessened desulfurization rate. This can also be seen to
alter the inclusion path during processing.
Figure 55: % Mg from AFA inclusion data using robot samples to compare effects from desulfurization rates.
Since sulfur is a main driver of the tail formation in AFA’s, it also plays a role in where
the inclusion distribution finishes. If the initial compositional range is large the final grouping after
modification will match the same large inclusions distribution. This can make it difficult to hit the
ideal target for inclusion modification with Ca-wire when the heat leaves the LMF. If more Ca is
added to the heat to shift the modification group it will only form more CaS not tighten the
0
5
10
15
20
25
S A R C E
Incl
usi
on
% M
g
RSI4
SI2
77
grouping. This is due to the distribution of Ca on the inclusion population remaining. An example
of this is shown in Figure 56.
Figure 56: Comparison of two different heats that resulted in different modification.
FeSi Effects
Si-bearing heats have been discussed and compared to RSi heats throughout the paper. It
has been shown that the effects of the residual components of FeSi, mainly Ca, can play a role in
the LMF process. Pretorius et al, [130] showed that if the FeSi bulk material can be segregated and
analyzed to determine the contained Ca% in the FeSi, then it can be used as a late addition in
replace of some or all of the Ca wire used for treatment. However, in the case where the material
cannot be physically separated the lack of control of the Ca percent in the FeSi delivered material
can cause issues when trying to use it in this way. It was determined that adding FeSi early with a
residual Ca percentage can be advantageous. When added before the end of desulfurization, it can
aid in sulfur removal. It was validated that the formation CaAl inclusions do not form after a FeSi
addition to verify that the early addition was not forming harmful inclusions, and aided in the
desulfurization process. An example of this is shown in Figure 57. After the 317.5 Kg (700 lbs)
addition of FeSi, there was no presence of CaS. A slight Ca pickup was seen in the inclusions
78
composition starting with the ‘S’ sample at 0.35% to the ‘A’ sample at 11.46%, but plateauing at
the ‘R’ sample at 11.08%. However, as shown previously, after the sulfur level is low, a significant
FeSi addition will start the modification tail as also shown in the figure below.
Figure 57: Effects of FeSi additions on AFA results.
It was determined that a Ca restricted FeSi addition early in the heat was also ideal for
cleanliness. From Pitts, et al [57], showed an improved inclusion index from adding FeSi early
(red bars - 9.7 average) versus late (blue bars - 15.3 average), Figure 58. The yellow lines on the
chart depict the average of each data set. The student T-test was used to show the probability of
significance. The results of that test for this relationship was 0.0357%. This equates to a high
likelihood that the practices had a direct effect on the data set.
79
Figure 58: Comparison of the inclusion index versus total weight added of FeSi.
To show the effects of Si on inclusions throughout a heat, a plot of the AFA’s % solid
inclusions throughout the LMF process steps shows a significant difference in the trend between
Si-bearing and RSi in Figure 59. The final step was not plotted due to it being 95+% liquid due to
Ca treatment.
Figure 59: Solid inclusion % for each multi-depth location and process step S-C.
Also, Table 18 shows that the amount of Al consumption for Si-bearing heats was always
lower than RSi heats. The only exception to this was heat SI1* which had a considerable amount
0
5
10
15
20
25
44
5
45
6
49
6
52
4
55
0
55
4
56
4
75
6
78
2
93
6
10
46
45
6
50
4
50
6
52
4
56
2
62
6
77
6
85
0
91
0
10
66
Incl
usi
on
In
dex
Kg of FeSi Addition Early FeSi addition Delayed FeSi addition
75
80
85
90
95
100
S1 S2 S3 A1 A2 A3 R1 R2 R3 C1 C2 C3
RSI3
% Solid
75
80
85
90
95
100
S1 S2 S3 A1 A2 A3 R1 R2 R3 C1 C2 C3
SI3 (Si)
% Solid
80
of furnace slag carryover. Also, the table shows the amount of tap oxygen per heat to show that
the Al consumption does not depend strictly on the tap oxygen ppm level. NOTE: This table does
not include Ca-aluminate additions to the slag which have approximately 30% alumina content.
However, the trend is still the same. Lowering Al consumption not only saves costs, but reduces
the potential for increased alumina formation.
Table 18: Al Consumption per heat.
Heat
Al Consumption
(kg/lbs)
Tap Oxygen
(ppm)
SI3 326.6 / 720 1110
SI2 331.6 / 731 627
SI4 374.6 / 826 993
RSI2 392.4 / 865 996
RSI4 395.5 / 872 966
RSI3 410.5 / 905 916
RSI1 470.4 / 1037 996
RSIOT 491.7 / 1084 961
SI1* 508.0 / 1120 1074
Pre-rinse versus Post Rinse
Previous studies have shown that pre-rinse is the best solution for inclusion removal
due to the inclusions present are still in a solid phase during this time. [28] An additional
study was completed using the FeSi addition trial data. These data sets showed very similar
results. Figure 60, the amount of pre-rinse time is plotted against the inclusion index for both
the early addition heats (red), as well as the delayed addition heats (blue). The R2 value was
enough to further investigate potential correlation. The student T-test was also completed on
this data and showed to have a high probability of significance (2.8%). An additional gain
from adding the FeSi early is the ability for it to help aid in desulfurization. After sulfur is
below its target value, the stir flow rate is reduced which ultimately starts pre-rinse. By adding
the FeSi early allows for additional pre-rinse time resulting in a potentially cleaner heat.
81
Figure 60: Inclusion index versus pre-rinse times. [57]
This study determined that post rinse does not aid in inclusion floatation. Post rinse is
very influential in the inclusion composition homogeneity. It has been verified that a
minimum of 5 minutes is required at NSTI for post rinse to reach homogeneity. This can be
seen in the ternary set shown in Figure 61. The inclusion population after wire treatment does
not decrease. Therefore, it is believed that inclusion do not float into the slag during post rinse
unless the inclusion size is very large. This is due to the inclusion being liquid, and not having
the interfacial energy to attach to the slag layer. This is discussed further in O’Malley’s paper
on inclusion evolution. [131]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Incl
usi
on
In
dex
Pre-Rinse Time (min)
Early Addition Delayed Addition
82
Figure 61: Post Rinse inclusion evolution.
To compare the results from the FeSi addition trial data to the newest multi-depth data
set, a plot of the inclusion counts on the ‘C’ and ‘E’ samples were used. Figure 62 shows that
the inclusion counts in the sample before Ca treatment (blue) is always lower than the after
wire inclusions counts. It also shows that the inclusions counts for Si-bearing grades have less
inclusions present than RSi in most cases which also matches the data that was initially
completed for the FeSi addition trials. NOTE: The open tap heat (RSIOT) and the furnace
slag carryover heat (SI1*) were excluded.
83
Figure 62: Inclusion count trend for robot samples.
Though the inclusion counts trend upward after wire treatment, the inclusion index is
typically lower. This can be seen in Figure 63, which also shows some variation between RSi
and Si-bearing heats especially early in the LMF processing.
Figure 63: Inclusion index trend.
RSI1 RSI2 RSI3 RSI4 SI2 SI3 SI4
C 563 696 807 442 602 465 318
E 860 882 1225 1409 1236 472 331
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Incl
usi
on C
ount
Inclusions count at C and E
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S A R C E
Inclusion Index
RSI1
SI4
84
Robot samples versus multi-depth samples
Through the information gathered from the multi-depth sampling device, the opportunity
to see inclusions at different depths simultaneously was achieved. The ability to see multiple
depths inside a ladle during processing has never been accomplished. Therefore, using this
opportunity to gain insight on inclusions populations, paths, compositional changes, slag
emulsification, etc. is exciting.
Since it has been determined that there are differences between RSi and Si-bearing grades,
this discussion will begin with RSi. Figure 64 shows the multi-depth samples from heat RSI3
where ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’ are the processing step designation and ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ are the different
depths. Samples taken at depth ‘1’ is roughly 0.15 m (6 inches) below the slag layer, sample ‘2’ is
0.76 m (30 inches) below the slag layer, and sample ‘3’ is roughly 1.37 m (54 inches) below the
slag layer. As the figure portrays, there is not a significant difference in the inclusion population
location. However, there is a slight increase in tail formation towards the modification region as
the sample depth increases. In the ‘R’ and ‘C’ samples the inclusions counts diminish as the sample
depth increases. This suggest that the slag layer is the most reactive layer during processing until
Ca treatment. In processing time ‘E’, the inclusion counts do not decline from sample 1 to 3;
however, the modification region is shifted slightly more to the Ca region. This can be seen by the
average blue box located on each AFA, as well as the increase in % Ca in the inclusions
compositional data box also located on each AFA. The multi-depth samples were taken in the
downward flow portion of the stir pattern. To investigate another portion of the ladle, Figure 65
shows the robot samples taken from the same heat. Ironically, the robot samples (taken on the side
of the stir path) show a higher inclusion index, count, and much longer tail than the samples taken
from the same time using the multi-depth on sample sets ‘R’ and ‘C’. However, after Ca treatment,
85
the inclusion index was seen to be much less than the multi-depth samples. The robot sample is
taken at approximately the same depth as sample ‘2’; however, the only sample time that visually
matches the robot and the multi-depth is the final sample ‘E’. The numerical data for this heat can
be found in Table 19. This table shows the differences in the data recorded by the AFA. It can be
seen that the robot sample varies significantly from the multi-depth samples.
Figure 64: Multi-Depth Sampling of RSI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’.
86
Figure 65: Robot Samples of RSI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’
Table 19: AFA data comparison of multi-depth versus Robot samples for processing times ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’. (RSI3)
Looking at Si-bearing grades, it is noticed the same trends that were present for RSi are not
present for Si-bearing. The inclusion counts do not decrease nor does the index. This was seen
across all the Si-bearing heats. The inclusion tail slightly increases as the depth increases, but not
as quantifiable as the RSi heats, i.e. the % Ca does not always increase as the depth increases. It is
noted that on the final sample ‘E’, the deepest sample is the most modified as well as the lowest
count of inclusions than the higher depths.
When comparing the multi-depth samples to the robot samples the differences are
relatively dramatic. The tail formation on the robot samples is much less than all the multi-depth
samples, as well as the inclusion counts, inclusion index, and the % liquid on the ‘R’ and ‘C’
Sample # of Incl % Solid % Liquid Avg Dia Avg Area Total Area Index % Mg % Al % S % Ca % Mn Ca/Al
R1 431 97.7 2.32 1.91 3.28 1415 3.88 23.02 68.42 1.64 4.75 2.14 0.07
R2 388 98.2 1.8 1.94 3.19 1239 3.4 26.05 67.96 0.59 5.02 0.37 0.07
R3 371 97.3 2.7 1.97 3.3 1225 3.36 25.52 67.33 0.88 5.32 0.91 0.08
R Robot 844 83.1 16.9 1.82 2.81 2372 6.53 20.61 63.34 6.39 8.23 1.28 0.13
C1 586 97.4 2.56 2.01 3.59 2105 5.77 21.55 68.43 1.17 5.84 2.95 0.09
C2 585 97.4 2.56 1.9 3.09 1808 4.95 20.35 68.8 1.5 5.47 3.84 0.08
C3 490 95.9 4.08 2.02 3.97 1946 5.33 22.13 67.48 0.98 6.78 2.62 0.1
C Robot 799 89.1 10.9 1.95 3.12 2496 6.84 21.07 64.9 3.6 8.74 1.45 0.13
E1 406 3.94 96.1 1.99 14.2 5759 15.8 6.4 41.63 3.37 47.8 0.26 1.15
E2 818 1.34 98.7 1.92 11.7 9578 26.2 4.81 41 4.28 48.9 0.14 1.19
E3 476 2.52 97.5 2.51 21.4 10210 28 4.8 40.48 2.44 50.39 0.2 1.24
E Robot 1225 0.898 99.1 1.67 3.26 3989 10.9 5.54 36.27 6.09 51.13 0.05 1.42
87
samples. When looking at the final sample ‘E’ on both the robot and the multi-depth samples, the
robot sample is more modified, has less inclusions, a better inclusion index, as well as 0% solid
inclusions. Table 20 shows the AFA numerical data collected for this particular heat.
Figure 66: Multi-Depth Sampling of SI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’.
88
Figure 67: Robot Samples of SI3 ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’.
Table 20: AFA data comparison of multi-depth versus Robot samples for processing times ‘R’, ‘C’, and ‘E’. (SI3)
To compare RSi versus Si-bearing, a few components of the AFA’s were plotted side by
side. Inclusion index is a ratio of the area consumed by inclusions and the area that was scanned
by the AFA program. The index provides a good baseline comparison for AFA’s. Since the index
is used as a factor in rating steel cleanliness at NSTI, Figure 68 plotted the inclusions index versus
all the processing steps and samples for two different heats. As stated previously, the variation on
from the robot samples is seen throughout both sample sets. It is also see that the arrival sample
‘S’ has a significant amount variability on both heats. It is also seen that the Si-bearing heat had
less variability between each sampling time, as well as finished with a lower inclusion index than
the RSi heat.
Sample # of Incl % Solid % Liquid Avg Dia Avg Area Total Area Index % Mg % Al % S % Ca % Mn Ca/Al
R1 431 97.7 2.32 1.91 3.28 1415 3.88 23.02 68.42 1.64 4.75 2.14 0.07
R2 388 98.2 1.8 1.94 3.19 1239 3.4 26.05 67.96 0.59 5.02 0.37 0.07
R3 371 97.3 2.7 1.97 3.3 1225 3.36 25.52 67.33 0.88 5.32 0.91 0.08
R Robot 844 83.1 16.9 1.82 2.81 2372 6.53 20.61 63.34 6.39 8.23 1.28 0.13
C1 586 97.4 2.56 2.01 3.59 2105 5.77 21.55 68.43 1.17 5.84 2.95 0.09
C2 585 97.4 2.56 1.9 3.09 1808 4.95 20.35 68.8 1.5 5.47 3.84 0.08
C3 490 95.9 4.08 2.02 3.97 1946 5.33 22.13 67.48 0.98 6.78 2.62 0.1
C Robot 799 89.1 10.9 1.95 3.12 2496 6.84 21.07 64.9 3.6 8.74 1.45 0.13
E1 406 3.94 96.1 1.99 14.2 5759 15.8 6.4 41.63 3.37 47.8 0.26 1.15
E2 818 1.34 98.7 1.92 11.7 9578 26.2 4.81 41 4.28 48.9 0.14 1.19
E3 476 2.52 97.5 2.51 21.4 10210 28 4.8 40.48 2.44 50.39 0.2 1.24
E Robot 1225 0.898 99.1 1.67 3.26 3989 10.9 5.54 36.27 6.09 51.13 0.05 1.42
89
Figure 68: Inclusion index comparison charts for multi-depth samples and robot samples
Comparison charts were also completed for Ca/Al Ratio (Figure 69), % Al (Figure 70), and
% Ca (Figure 71) for the selected heats. The Ca/Al Ratio showed an increase from the multi-depth
samples to the robot samples on both heats, though the samples leading up to the final sample ‘E’
did not consistently show the same pattern.
Figure 69: Ca/Al Ratio comparison for multi-depth and robot
The charts compiled for the % Al inclusions (Figure 70) did show what was expected in
the general comparison of RSi versus Si-bearing. In that, the Si-bearing heats have less % Al
throughout except the arrival sample which appeared to have the same variation as the RSi heats.
The charts for the % Ca (Figure 71) also showed what was expected, in that the Si-bearing heats
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
S1
S2
S3
Ro
bo
t 0
A1
A2
A3
Ro
bo
t 1
R1
R2
R3
Ro
bo
t 2
C1
C2
C3
Ro
bo
t 3
E1
E2
E3
Ro
bo
t 4
Incl
usi
on I
ndex
RSI3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A1
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C1
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
Incl
usi
on I
ndex
SI3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A1
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C1
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
Ca/
Al
Rat
io
RSI3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
S1
S2
S3
Ro
bo
t 0
A1
A2
A3
Ro
bo
t 1
R1
R2
R3
Ro
bo
t 2
C1
C2
C3
Ro
bo
t 3
E1
E2
E3
Ro
bo
t 4
Ca/
Al
Rat
io
SI3
90
tend to show more interaction throughout the heat relating to increase % Ca in the inclusion
composition.
Figure 70: AFA inclusion data % Al comparison for robot vs multi-depth samples
Figure 71: AFA inclusion data % Ca comparison for robot vs multi-depth for heat RSI3 (RSi)
SLAG EMULISIFICATON
One of the main objectives for the multi-depth sampling technique was to characterize the
slag/metal reaction zone during the LMF processing of carbon steels. By use of the multi-depth
sampling techniques a better understanding of droplet formation and size in relation to slag
composition and flow rate is achieved. Some models refer to the possibility of slag droplets being
formed; however, the depth of which they are shown to go down to in the models as well as the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A1
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C1
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
% A
l -
incl
usi
ons
RSI3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
S1
S2
S3
Ro
bo
t 0
A1
A2
A3
Ro
bo
t 1
R1
R2
R3
Ro
bo
t 2
C1
C2
C3
Ro
bo
t 3
E1
E2
E3
Ro
bo
t 4
% A
l -
incl
usi
ons
SI3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A1
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C1
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
% C
a
RSI3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60S
1S
2S
3R
obo
t 0
A1
A2
A3
Ro
bo
t 1
R1
R2
R3
Ro
bo
t 2
C1
C2
C3
Ro
bo
t 3
E1
E2
E3
Ro
bo
t 4
% C
a
SI3
91
sizes do not match to the current sampling data. Most of the methods that are looking at
emulsification use water modeling techniques. Therefore, the droplet sizes are measured in
millimeters versus micrometers. Since most of the droplets found in this study that are being
analyzed are not large enough to be seen, SEM analysis was performed in large feature mode on
the steel samples using a large area scan only detecting large inclusion ( > 10 microns). An example
of an AFA that was completed is shown in Figure 72, where only the liquid inclusions greater than
10 μm are kept from the AFA data. These samples show droplets going deeper than 1.5 m below
the slag layer at all processing flowrates. Figure 73 shows examples of some droplets that were
found during these trials. Also, listed with the picture is the diameter as well as the composition.
This analysis will assist significantly in the development of a comprehensive droplet model that
will be used in conjunction with CFD and reaction kinetics models [120] [135] [137] to predict the
desulfurization kinetics in LMF under various process conditions.
Figure 72: Slag Droplet AFA example.
92
Figure 73: Pictures and composition of slag droplets found in AFA’s.
After the data was collected, it was challenging to determine what the cause of these
droplets were, as well as what effect, if any, on the reactions going on in the bath. No direct
correlation was found when looking at the depth versus the number of droplets. Also, no direct
correlation was found when plotting the flow rate versus the number of droplets. This seemed very
unusual. However, when the chart was laid against the flow pattern in the ladle the average number
of droplets found lined up with the change in flow patterns. An example of this is shown in Figure
74 where the blue and grey lines represent the flow rate for the primary and secondary porous
plugs respectively. Since the multi-depth samples were taken from the downward portion of the
flow pattern the conditions for capturing the droplets that were being pulled back down into the
ladle was ideal. As the slag composition changed, the flow pattern affected it differently. However,
regardless of slag composition the droplet formation was seen to increase when the flow rate
increased, and decrease when the flow rate decreased. This is not including the final sample since
there is no distinguishable way to determine if it is a large liquid inclusion or a slag droplet.
93
Figure 74: Emulsification droplets in comparison of stir flow trends.
Another variable that increased the number of droplets present was arc time. Since arcing
time varies dependent on the incoming conditions, processing time, and shop variables,
determining that the number of droplets increase with the amount of arc time is important. Figure
75 shows that the arc time is related to the droplets that are seen in the samples. After conducting
the F-test on this data set it was seen to have a significance factor of 0.165; however, after
excluding RSIOT and RSI3, which were outliers in the data set, the F-test significance dropped to
0.104 with a p-value of 0.0135 which validates a correlation between arc time and droplet count.
This could also be related to the slag being superheated while arcing, which will make the slag
layer more fluid. If the slag layer is more fluid the opportunity to produce more droplets will be
present.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
17 17 17 45 45 45 14 14 14 25 25 25 15 15 15
Dro
ple
ts F
ound
Flow Rate (scfm)
RSI3
94
Figure 75: Effects of Arcing time on droplet formation.
Since AFA methods were used to measure the droplets within the sample, the ability to use
the inclusion index was available. Using the inclusion index, it was seen that there was a correlation
between the slag droplet index and the desulfurization rate as well as the total sulfur removed. The
plot of the droplet inclusion index versus the desulfurization rate is shown in Figure 76. This shows
that the desulfurization rate is higher for a smaller inclusion index. However in Figure 77, it is
shown that the total sulfur removed followed an opposite trend. It shows that the larger the
inclusion index the more sulfur is removed from the heat. These variables were both validated by
conducting F-tests. The F-test significance for the desulfurization rate versus the droplet inclusion
index was 0.0075 showing high correlation with a p-value of 0.00019. For the total sulfur removed
versus the droplet inclusion index the F-test significance was 0.043 with a p-value of 0.005.
Typically, liquid inclusions early in the heat would be considered harmful since most liquid
inclusions do not float out into the slag. The slag droplets found do appear could have some
positive influence on the total sulfur removed in the heat. However, with the desulfurization rate
showing an opposite trend, the potential correlation of initial stir rate versus the droplet inclusion
R² = 0.5738
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Dro
ple
t C
ount
Arc Time (minutes)
Arc Time
95
index was evaluated. This is shown in Figure 78. Though the R2 value is not quite as high as the
desulfurization rate correlation, the F-test showed a significance of 0.069 along with a p-value of
0.00002. Since the stir rate changes throughout a heat, the R2 value could have been influenced by
the change in the stir rate throughout the data set sampling time. It appears the opposite trend in
the desulfurization rate may be influenced by the stir flow rate.
Figure 76: Slag Droplet Inclusion Index effects on desulfurization rate and total sulfur removal. (RSIOT excluded)
R² = 0.7899
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Deo
ple
t In
clusi
on I
ndex
Desuflurization Rate
Droplet Inclusion Index vs Desulfurization Rate
96
Figure 77: Droplet inclusion index versus total sulfur removed.
Figure 78: Droplet inclusion index versus initial stir rate.
Comparing slag droplets present in RSi versus Si-bearing heats showed a significant
difference. For RSi heats large amounts of slag droplets (> 50) were found on all but one sampling
time. However, for the Si-bearing heat at no point in time during the process did the slag droplet
R² = 0.5932
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050
Dro
ple
t In
clusi
on I
ndex
Total Sulfur Removed
Droplet Inclusion Index vs Total Sulfur Removed
R² = 0.5144
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5
Dro
ple
t In
clusi
on I
ndex
Initial Stir Rate (m3/s)
Droplet Inclusion Index vs Initial Stir Rate
97
count even exceed 30. Variability between sampling depths as well as location shows to be
unpredictable at this point, and it will be continued to be investigated.
Figure 79: Number of slag droplets per sample comparing RSi and Si-bearing.
Similar trends were found when comparing the inclusion index of RSi versus Si-bearing
heats. It appears to be even more significant than droplet count since the inclusion index
incorporates the sizes of the droplets found. This could potentially explain the very low sulfurs at
the end of the heat on RSI3 even though the heat was RSi. These heats both ended the LMF process
with very low sulfur concentration. The RSI3 heat finished processing with a 0.0016 wt % S, and
the SI3 heat finished processing with a 0.0014 wt % S.
Figure 80: Inclusion index per sample comparing RSi and Si-bearing.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A1
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C1
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
# s
lag d
rop
lets
RSI3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
# s
lag d
rop
lets
SI3
0
50
100
150
200
250
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A1
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C1
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
AF
A I
ndex
RSI3
0
50
100
150
200
250
S1
S2
S3
S R
obo
t
A2
A3
A R
ob
ot
R1
R2
R3
R R
obo
t
C2
C3
C R
obo
t
E1
E2
E3
E R
ob
ot
AF
A I
ndex
SI3
98
It appears that the formation of the droplets is potentially different for RSi than Si-bearing.
The number of droplets for Si-bearing heats was typically less than the number of droplets found
for RSi heats. The effects of emulsification on desulfurization and steel cleanliness are to be
investigated further.
CALCIUM TREATMENT
Ca treatment is an essential part of clean steel practices. The timing of the treatment as well
as the amount can alter the inclusions in the liquid steel positively or negatively. Inevitably,
inclusions will always be present. The goal is to control the composition, morphology, and size to
improve castability and to not harm the physical properties desired in the finished product. Each
heat produced is slightly different; therefore, logically Ca treatment would not be the same for
every heat. Until recently, that was the condition at NSTI. Each heat received the same Ca
treatment regardless of the condition of the heat. Examples of some heats are shown below, Figure
81.
99
Figure 81: Four different heats with all the same wire addition. [57]
Using a large data set, a mathematical model was developed using NSTI’s data, and with
assistance from Nucor’s Steel Making Technology Manager that merged the effects of three main
components: time, sulfur, and silicon. This model calculates the amount of Ca wire needed to
modify the heat based on the three main components listed (patent pending). A screen shot of the
100
model at NSTI is shown below in Figure 82. As discussed previously, each of these parameters
play a major role in the evolution of inclusions.
Figure 82: Calcium wire model program at NSTI.
This Ca addition model was verified using AFA data, as well as a live feedback approach.
The live feedback approach was tracking the stopper rod movement at the caster. Though the LMF
is not always the culprit to stopper rod movement, it definitely can have a negative effect. The
stopper rod function is to control the flow of steel into the mold. This flow needs to be very
consistent to not produce turbulence or voids in the flow of steel from the tundish to the mold. The
stopper rod trend is desired to gradually move downward, example Figure 83 (left). This is a sign
of slight wear on the rod, and has been accepted as an ideal practice. However, when the rod has
to move upward, it is due to something clinging to the rod which restricts the flow. The rod then
has to move upward to continue to allow the set flow rate into the mold. This causes the stopper
rod trace to go up, example Figure 83 (right). The stopper rod data is recorded on a per heat basis.
Since the installation of the mathematical model the stopper rod upward movement has reduced
by 25%. This model has been very successful with reducing positive stopper rod movement, as
well as controlling modification of inclusions consistently at the LMF. Some examples of stopper
rod trends of heats that were ran before and after the model are below in Figure 83. Figure 84 shows
101
the stopper rod schematic [73] with a recent stopper rod sequence trend. The stopper rod trend is
in blue, and the ladle exchanges are shown above it in yellow.
(a) (b)
Figure 83: Stopper Rod traces. Ideal (a) Clogging (b) [57]
Figure 84: Stopper rod schematic with ideal stopper rod trend (right).
Figure 85 shows a histogram of the stopper deviation (throughout the heat) for 2900 heats
before and after the model was implemented. The data shows that the stopper rod deviation
improved after the model was implemented. This shows that there was a 25% reduction in heats
that caused the rod to rise after the model was implemented (rise greater than 1%).
102
Figure 85: Stopper Rod Deviation before and after model.
The Ca mathematical model is currently being used at NSTI, and it has been proven to be
85+% accurate on determining the amount of wire needed to make the heat successfully leaving
the LMF. This model is only limited to the amount of silicon contained, the amount of sulfur, and
the time at the LMF. However, if any anomaly occurs during processing such as furnace slag
carryover, inadequate processing time, heat being sent back from the caster, etc. this model is not
always adequate. An example is shown in Figure 86. This particular heat had several process
variables that were not ideal, but was sent to the caster against better judgment. This heat clogged
off due to the lack of wire with the combination of being excessively dirty.
-5 or
less(-4)-(-5) (-3)-(-4) (-2)-(-3) (-1)-(-2) 0-(-1) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
After 18 6 7 27 105 751 1603 294 49 13 11
Before 16 5 2 36 172 706 1472 369 80 18 5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Fre
quen
cy
Stopper Rod Deviation (mm)
103
Figure 86: Example of the effects of late additions in conjunction with poor stir conditions.
Since AFA takes well over two hours to complete, a real-time model with rapid process
feedback is desired. With a PDA-OES technique, all production situations could be predicted with
a much higher accuracy since it is a measurement, and not a semi-empirical calculation. Therefore
while using the mathematical model as a baseline, an empirical LMF Ca injection model using
SparkDAT (PDA-OES) techniques for rapid inclusions analysis was created. Numerous papers
have been written in determining if a PDA-OES technique could be a useful tool in an operational
setting. However, none of the publications have used this tool in production as a Ca weight
determination method. While running the methods simultaneously, regression analysis was
completed on the SparkDAT data correlating it to the mathematical model data. The equation that
was formulated from the analysis was added to the calculation completed by the spectrometer. The
data was captured for over six months and compared. Both the wire mathematical model and the
SparkDAT model have been edited to better align with production variables. SparkDAT has been
deemed to be an accurate source of information for wire footage. Now with the use of this live
tool, the ability for accurate wire determination can be done within approximately one minute.
104
To show the variation in the SparkDat analysis and the wire model that was developed,
Figure 87 is a histogram that shows the percentage of samples test out of approximately 3200
samples that had a difference of wire footage request from SparkDat versus the wire model. When
looking at the differences in wire, it is hard to believe that 22.9 m (75 ft) of difference is not a lot.
The previous practice at NSTI was to add 152.5 m (500 ft) of wire per heat. This equates to roughly
17.2 Kg (38 lbs) of Ca (CalSil wire is 0.11 Kg/m or 0.0765 lbs/ft contain Ca). This means that
22.9 m (75 ft) of wire is roughly 2.3 kg (5 lbs) of Ca going into 125 Tons of steel. Out of
approximately 3200 heats over 80% of the heats showed the model and SparkDat to be within 22.9
m (75 ft) of each other. The heats that are outside these ranges are being investigated. The root
cause of the differences so far have found to be two-fold. The wire model needs an upper limit to
be introduced. However, the biggest difference is typically related to sample preparation. Means
of improving sample preparation that is efficient enough for operational interest is being
investigated.
Figure 87: Histogram of the footage difference in SparkDat versus the wire model.
0.5% 0.9%
2.9%
7.0%
14.4%
22.3%
20.1%
13.6%
8.4%9.8%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
% o
f sa
mp
les
wit
hin
ran
ge
Feet of wire difference between wire addition vs Sparkdat
105
MANGANESE MICRO-SEGREGATION IN SAMPLE
Determination of the sample thickness and its effects on the quality of inclusions
characterization (MnS, CaS) by using a CFD model for an industrial sampler was investigated. It
is known that Mn is an element that segregates in steel, as well as it forms MnS during the
solidification process especially at longer solidification time and higher concentrations of sulfur.
By using CFD modeling (Ansys’s Fluent), the goal was to determine the appropriate sample
thickness needed to minimize the resulting Mn segregation for production samples, as well as to
compare the current two sampling techniques to the resulting data to determine sample thickness
segregation effects.
The initial simulation showed that the sample solidified at approximately 4 seconds, Figure
88a. This resulted in no macro segregation of Mn in the sample. The temperature profile is shown
in, Figure 88b, after the 4-seconds interval. The sample solidified as expected, and with a valid
time frame for this application. These results were also similar to the results found in Zhang et al.
[132]
(a) (b)
Figure 88: Solid fraction at 4 seconds. (a) Temperature profile at 4 seconds. (b)
106
Since Mn variation throughout the thickness of a sample occurs in the production
application as shown in Figure 89, the need to understand how much micro-segregation is present,
as well as if the segregation has an effect of the compositional changes. To accomplish this, an
argon purged sample was cut in half, schematic shown in Figure 90. The inside surface was
polished and etched to gather grain size information through various locations throughout the
sample. Grain size analysis on the cross section of the sample is shown in Figure 91.
(a) (b)
Figure 89: Mn concentration change throughout sample depth for LMF (a) and Caster (b) samples.
Figure 90: Schematic of sample.
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
0 2 4 6
% M
n
HSLA
LMF Caster
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.86
0 2 4 6
% M
n
A36
LMF Caster
107
Figure 91: Grain size analysis at various locations throughout the cross section of the sample.
The average grain size is approximately 70 microns in diameter. Using the grain size as
previously discussed to determine the α and Ω values, Equation 12 and 13. These were then used
to solve for the solid concentration (Cs), Equation 14. The data for the micro-segregation
calculations is listed in Table 21. Where Ds is the diffusivity of sulfur, tf is the time to solidify, λ
is the average grain size, α and Ω are calculated from Equations X and X as a constant, k is the
partition coefficient, and C0 is the starting composition of the element (Mn).
Table 21: Data for micro segregation calculations. [128]
Ds tf λ α Ω k (Mn) C0 (Mn)
m2/s s m %
2.47E-13 5 7.00E-05 -1.01E-03 -1.01E-03 0.77 1.1
The results were plotted in Figure 92. This showed the differences in using the Scheil
equation and Clyne equation differences. [90] The methods for this data set were very similar for
both Mn and Sulfur. This is not unexpected due to the low amounts of sulfur present in the steels
108
produced today. Figure 93 shows a comparison of sulfur concentration over time correlated to the
number of actual MnS inclusions. A very limited amount of MnS inclusions were found in the
current project data, as well as an even smaller presence of CaS inclusions.
Figure 92: Micro-segregation of Mn and S comparing methods.
Figure 93: Inclusion count of MnS versus time and sulfur content in the steel. [54]
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
CS
Fraction Solid
Coarsening Segregation
Mn
S Clyne
S Scheil
109
More analysis should be completed in the future including SEM analysis in the grain
boundaries to investigate potential MnS in the sample, as well as the repeatability in the
spectrometer results. Overall, it was determined that the Mn variation seen in the current method
sampling technique is not related to micro- or macro-segregation, and it is more related to the
variation within the spectrometer along with the sample preparation variation.
110
CONCLUSIONS
The functions of the slag at the LMF are critical to producing a high end product with
higher cleanliness. Slag evolves throughout the LMF process to be able to adapt to its changing
functions throughout the heat while remaining as an insulator and as a barrier to the atmosphere.
Initially in the heat, the slag fluidity is important for desulfurization; however, as the heat
progresses the removal of alumina based inclusions becomes more of a focus. This can be seen
through the slag sampling technique developed. The three-prong device to take samples at the eye
provided insight on the reactivity of oxygen at the exposed point in the ladle, furthermore deeming
it more reliable to take samples away from the stir eye.
LMF slag is also dependent on the amount of EAF slag carryover that takes place. It was
seen how dramatically excessive slag carryover can impact the entire LMF processing sequence.
It was shown how it affects the incoming slag composition, the desulfurization, the total sulfur
removal, the Al consumption, the inclusion counts, as well as on inclusion modification. Though
it was also seen that with enough processing time, this anomaly was overcome.
It is known that Si effects the fluidity of the slag as well reoxidation of Al in the steel bath.
This in turn effects the inclusions captured in the slag, the desulfurization rate, and the morphology
of the inclusions within the molten steel. When comparing the inclusion evolution of Si-bearing
grades versus RSi grades several differences arose. RSi heats typically have a very tight cluster of
inclusions; however, it was noticed that when RSi grades dropped below a 0.003% S a
compositional tail formation occurred. This is similar to what is seen in Si-bearing grades without
necessarily having the low %S present. The inclusion paths were plotted and showed significant
111
differences based off of the sulfur content. Si-bearing grades are known to have a wider
compositional range of inclusions or a longer tail formation. Since Si-bearing heats have a
tendency to desulfurize faster as well as to lower levels of sulfur, longer tail formations are
expected on these grades. However looking further into the inclusion evolution on Si-bearing
grades, it was noticed that the compositional range/tail formation is more closely correlated to the
FeSi addition after desulfurization due to the residual Ca % contained in the FeSi. It was noted that
the tail formation was heavily effected when both conditions, %S > 0.003 and FeSi was added
after desulfurization, were present. It has been seen that the longer the processing time after the
sulfur reaches below 0.003 wt %, the more of a tail formation / modified the heat becomes
regardless of grade type. FactSage shows fast Mg and Ca pickup in steel from slag. It is seen that
the Mg inclusion composition will increase overtime; however, it was found that the Ca pickup is
directly related to the S% and Si% in the steel. Below a certain level the sulfur stops acting as a
barrier, and drives the Ca to be able to come out of the slag for inclusion modification. Si-bearing
heats typically decrease sulfur faster; therefore, this effect is seen more vividly on Si-bearing heats.
It was also seen that the pre-rinse stir always had a lower inclusion count than the post rinse
stir. This in turn confirms that the post rinse portion is not efficient for inclusion removal, but
rather for homogenization of the heat.
One of the major insights from this study was the differences between the robot samples
taken versus the multi-depth samples. The Si-bearing heats had very little change from sampling
time and location with respect to inclusion populations and composition. However, it was seen that
the inclusion population and compositional distribution was affected by location on RSi heats. It
was also noticed that the Si-bearing heats typically had a better inclusion index/cleanliness as well
as lower inclusions counts and fewer slag droplets. The variation of inclusions from different
112
locations in the ladle needs to be investigated further in relation to flow rates and sampling
locations.
The multi-depth sampling technique provided information on slag droplets that has not
been seen before. Slag emulsification has been investigated previously, but not on a micro-scale.
These slag droplets showed a correlation to the total sulfur removal, and were more predominant
in the RSi grades. Variables that showed correlation in predicting the droplet amounts: included
stir rate, % Si, and arc time.
A significant contribution from this study was the Ca treatment model. This model has
improved steel cleanliness, saved costs, and increased operational consistency at NSTI. The
model’s ability to predict a more accurate wire footage has proved to be successful as well. With
its success, the ability to implement the PDA-OES method through SparkDat is possible. This
methods alone has reduced the amount of quality issues due to inclusion related events
dramatically at NSTI.
Overall, the LMF process has many transient kinetic components. Looking strictly at the
thermodynamic components is not sufficient for understanding all of the reactions taking place
during LMF processing. The more the LMF process is investigated the more that is understood
about desulfurization, Si-bearing versus RSi, effects of ultra-low sulfur (%S < 0.003), slag
droplets, inclusion formations, etc. By incorporating these variables into improved dynamic
models will help make a more competitive product and cleaner steels.
113
CONTRIBUTION OF THIS STUDY
Slag composition
The evolution of slag composition was studied. It was determined that the ideal sampling
location for slag is located on the opposite side of the ladle from the stir eyes. It was also seen that
excessive furnace slag carryover can negatively affect the desulfurization rate, total sulfur removal,
as well as increases aluminum and lime consumption which adds to the cost of the process. It was
also seen that the effects of excessive slag carryover can be overcome with more processing time.
Desulfurization
A new equation was developed to calculate final sulfur content in the steel by incorporating
%Si in the steel. This equation had a standard deviation of 0.013% on all the heats run when
compared against the actual final sulfur content. Whereas, the equation developed by Turkdogan
had a 0.012% standard deviation, however it was unable to predict any of the Si-bearing heats.
Inclusion Evolution and Distribution
It was seen that sulfur had a dramatic effect on inclusion evolution for Restricted Silicon
grades. Whereas for Si-bearing grades, the FeSi addition timing played a bigger role on the AFA
tail formation in the inclusion distribution. It was seen that the barrier to the slag created by Sulfur
concentration in the steel is diminished when the sulfur level is below 0.003%. This allows the
Calcium in the slag to interact with the solid inclusions causing a tail formation/partially modified
inclusions. This was seen for both grade types.
114
Calcium Treatment
Due to the increased demand for low sulfurs, and the challenges faced with targeting the
exact calcium addition, a Ca treatment model was developed (patent pending). This model is
currently being used at NSTI with the ongoing development of the PDA-OES method, SparkDAT.
This is to incorporate a real-time feedback for exact calcium needed for inclusion modification.
Multi-depth Sampling
A multi-depth argon purged sampling device was created (patent pending), to be able to
simultaneously take samples during various processing times. Through AFA data, the samples
from this device showed the effects of argon flow on inclusions.
Emulsification
By use of the multi-depth sampling device, micro-scale emulsification was captured. It was
seen that the flow rate, arc time, as well as Si content in the steel had an effect on the presence of
these slag droplets. It was also seen that the increase in slag droplets correlates to an increased
total sulfur removal from the heat.
115
FUTURE WORK
Further development is needed to improve the accuracy on process anomalies for the PDA-
OES SparkDAT Ca-treatment method. Also, a deeper understanding on the formation and control
of the slag droplets on the sulfur removal process. The ability to quantify flow rate when comparing
data from different ladles would also be useful in further understanding the droplet formation.
Also, the data for this study will be used to further develop a 3D CFD model to aid in predicting
LMF processing steps.
116
REFERENCES
[1] R. Fruehan, Ladle Metallurgy Principles and Practices, Chelsa: Iron & Steel Society, 1985.
[2] L. Zhang and B. Thomas, "Inclusions in Continuous Casting of Steel," in XXIV National
Steelmaking Symposium, Morelia, Mexico, 2003.
[3] E. Pretorius, H. Oltmann and B. Schart, "An Overview of Steel Cleanliness From an Industry
Perspective," AIST Transactions, vol. 12, no. 3, 2015.
[4] P. Kaushik and H. Yin, "Thermodynamics, Engineering, and Characterization of Inclusions in
Advanced High Strength Steels," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, 2012.
[5] W. Tiekink, A. Overbosch, P. ten Bras, J. de Weerdt, C. van Hoek and R. Kooter, "Aspects of
Traces in Alloys and Some Effects on Steelmaking and Casting," in 8th International Conference
on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[6] E. Damm, P. Glaws, D. Gynther and D. Quikel, "Clean Steels Improve Gear Fatigue Properties,"
FORGEmag.com, vol. April , pp. 32-38, 2016.
[7] K. Yamamoto, H. Yamamura, D. Maeda and Y. Suwa, "The Effects of Nonmetallic Inclusions on
Local Ductility," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2011.
[8] P. Kaushik, M. Lowry, H. Yin and H. Pielet, "Inclusion Characterisation for Clean Steelmaking
and Quality Control," Ironmaking and Steelmaking, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 284-300, 2012.
[9] V. Singh, "Inclusion Modification in Steel Castings Using Automated Inclusion Analysis, A
Masters Thesis," Missouri S & T, Rolla, 2009.
[10] M. Cornille, M. Schad and S. Chakraborty, "A new technique for the characterization of sliver
defect orgins in the steel industry," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest,
Hungary, 2012.
[11] Y. Kang, B. Sahebkar, P. Scheller, K. Morita and D. Sichen, "Observation on Physical Growth of
Nonmetallic Inclusion in Liquid Steel During Ladle Treatment," The Minerals, Metals & Materials
Society and ASM International, vol. 42B, no. June, pp. 522-534, 2011.
[12] R. Morales and L. Garcia-Demedices, "Anticlogging Stopper Rod," in AISTech Proceedings -
Volume I, Indianapolis, 2011.
[13] R. Liu, J. Sengupta, D. Crosbie, M. Yavuz and B. Thomas, "Effects of Stopper Rod Movement on
Mold Fliud Flow at ArcelorMittal Dofasco's No. 1 Continuous Caster," in AISTech Conference
Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2011.
117
[14] R. Rastogi and A. Cramb, "Inclusion Formation and Agglomeration in Aluminum Killed Steels,"
in Ironmaking Conference Proceedings, Baltimore, 2001.
[15] B. Harcsik, P. Tardy, G. Karoly and R. Jozsa, "Investigation of Deposits on Submerged Entry
Nozzles," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[16] L. Zhang, B. Thomas, X. Wang and K. Cai, "Evaluation and Control of Steel Cleanliness -
Review," in 85th Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, Warrendale , 2002.
[17] H. Weerts, D. Senk, L. Sattler, C. Beiler and S. Janosch, "On-Line Determination of Steel
Cleanliness During Ladle Metallurgy," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest,
Hungary, 2012.
[18] S. Abraham, R. Bodnar and J. Raines, "Inclusion Engineering and the Metallurgy of Calcium
Treatment," Iron and Steel Technology, no. July, pp. 57-69, 2014.
[19] A. Wilson, "Clean Steel Technology - Fundamental to the Development of High Performance
Steels," in Advances in the Production and Use of Steel with Improved Internal Cleanliness, vol.
ASTM STP 1361, West Conshohocken, PA, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999,
pp. 73-88.
[20] A. Kaijalainen, P. Karjalainen, D. Porter, P. Duikkanen, J. Komi, V. Kesti and T. Saarinen, "Effect
of Inclusions on the Properties of Ultra-High Strength Low-Alloy Steel with a Martensitic-Bainitic
Microstructure," in 8th Internaional Conference on Clean Steel , Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[21] S. Nafisi, J. Jordan, C. Souza, L. Collins and T. Drake, "A Study of Ca-Modification Process in
Al-Killed Steels," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, 2012.
[22] W. Wilson and A. McLean, Desulfurization of Iron and Steel and Sulfide Shape Control,
Warrendale, PA: Iron & Steel Society of AIME, 1980.
[23] O. Adaba, M. Harris, R. O'Malley, S. Lekakh, V. Richards and N. Sutcliffe, "An SEM/EDS
Statistical Study of the Effect of Mini-Mill Practices on the Inclusion Population in Liquid Steel,"
in 9th International Conference and Exhibition on Clean Steel, Budapest, 2015.
[24] M. Jiang, X. Wang and W. Wang, "Study on Refining Slags Targeting High Cleanliness and
Lower Melting Temperature Inclusions in Al-Killed Steels," Iron and Steelmaking, vol. 39, no. 1,
pp. 20-25, 2012.
[25] C. Tse, S. Lee, S. Sridhar and A. Cramb, "In Situ Observations Relevant to Clean Steel:
Dissolution of Alumina Particles in Slags," in Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh,
2000 .
[26] S. Michelic, M. Hartl and C. Bernhard, "Thermodynamic and Experimental Study on the
Modification of Nonmetallic Inclusions Through the Contact with CaO-Al2O3-MgO Slags," in
AISTech Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2011.
[27] H. Gaye, "Inclusion Formation in Steels," in ASM Casting Volume, Pittsburgh, PA, The AISE
Steel Foundation, 2003, pp. 1-20.
118
[28] E. Pretorius, H. Oltmann and B. Schart, "An Overview of Steel Cleanliness from an Industry
Perspective," in AISTech, Pittsburgh, 2013.
[29] J. Lee and K. Morita, "Effect of Surface Active Element Sulfur on the Interfacial Energies
Between Gas, Solid and Molten Fe-C-S Alloys," in 85th Steelmaking Conference Proceedings,
Nashville, TN, 2002.
[30] N. El-Kaddah and J. Szekely, "Mathematical Model for Desulphurization Kinetics in Argon-
Stirred Ladles," Ironmaking and Steelmaking , vol. No. 6, pp. 269-278, 1981.
[31] K. Graham and G. Irons, "Toward Integrated Ladle Metallurgy Control," AIST Transactions, vol.
6, no. 1, pp. 164-174, 2009.
[32] E. Ramstrom, Mass Transfer and Slag - Metal Reaction in Ladle Refining - a CFD Approach
(Licentiate Thesis), Stockholm: KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management - Division
of Micro-Modeling, 2009.
[33] D. Roy, "Effect of Silicon on Desulfurization of Al-Killed Steels," Carneige Mellon University ,
Pittsburgh, 2012.
[34] R. Young, J. Duffy, G. Hassail and Z. Xu, "Use of Optical Basicity Concept for Determining
Phosphorus and Sulfur Slag-Metal Partitions," Ironmaking and Steelmaking, vol. 19, pp. 201-219,
1992.
[35] S. Story and R. Asfahani, "Control of Ca-Containing Inclusions in Al-Killed Steel Grades," in
AISTech, Pittsburgh, 2013.
[36] S. Story, N. Gupta and M. Molnar, "Effect of Oxygen Sources on Steel Cleanliness in Ti-Stablized
Ultra-Low Carbon Steels," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary,
2012.
[37] J. Mendez, A. Gomez, C. Capurro, R. Donayo and C. Cicutti, "Effect of Process Conditions on the
Evolution of MgO Content of Inclusions During the Production of Calcium Treated, Aluminum
Killed Steels," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[38] K. Steneholm, M. Andersson, P. Jonsson, A. Tilliander and M. Nzotta, "Removal of Hydrogen,
Nitrogen, and Sulfur from Tool Steel during Vacuum Degassing," in 7th International Conference
on Clean Steel, Hungary, 2007.
[39] J. Sosinsky and I. Sommerville, "The Composition and Temperature Dependence of the Sulfide
Capacity of Metallurigcal Slags," Metallurgical Transactions B, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 331-337, 1986.
[40] E. Pretorius, "Fundamentals of EAF and Ladle Slags and Ladle Refining Principles," [Online].
Available: http://etech.lwbref.com/Downloads/Theory [Accessed May 2016].
[41] A. Senguttuvan and G. Irons, "Model Studies on Slag Metal Entrainment in Gas-Stirred Ladles,"
AIST Transactions, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 230-241, 2014.
119
[42] G. Kor and P. Glaws, "Ladle Refining and Vacuum Degassing," in Making, Shaping, and Treating
of Steel, Pittsburgh, The AISE Steel Foundation, 1998, pp. 662-713.
[43] E. Turkdogan and R. Fruehan, "Fundamentals of Iron and Steelmaking," in Making, Shaping, &
Treating of Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, AISE Steel Foundation, 1998, p. Steelmaking and Refining
Volume.
[44] E. Turkdogan, Fundamentals of Steelmaking, London: The Institute of Materials, 1996.
[45] W. Tiekink, "Initial Alumina Formation: Some Additional Throughts Based on Labratrory and
Steel Plant Findings," AIST Transactions, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 294-298, 2014.
[46] S. Ueda, H. Shi and A. Cramb, "Observation of the Effect of Droplet Size on the Contact Angle
Between Liquid Iron and a Single Crystal, Alumina Substrate at 1873KI," in ISSTech Conference
Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2003.
[47] W. Tiekink, A. Overbosch, P. ten Bras, J. deWeerdt, C. van Hoek and R. Kooter, "Aspects of
Traces in Alloys and Some Effects on Steelmaking and Casting," in 8th International Conference
on Clean Steel , Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[48] J. Wang, L. Zhang, S. Uang, Y. Chen and J. Li, "Interaction Between Molten Steel, Lining
Refractory, and Slag Phase," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary,
2012.
[49] N. Verma, C. Pistorius, R. Fruehan, M. Potter, H. Oltmann and E. Pretorius, "Calcium
Modification of Spinel Inclusions in Aluminum-Killed Steel: Reaction Steps," Metallurgical and
Materials Transactions B, vol. 43B, no. August, pp. 830-840, 2012.
[50] S. Story, N. Gupta, G. Casuccio and M. Potter, "Analysis of Ti, Mg, and Zr Bearing Inclusions in
Ultra-Low and Low Carbon Steels," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh, 2010.
[51] C. Seo, S. Kim, S. Jo, M. Suk and S. Byun, "Modification and Minization of Spinel
(Al2O3.xMgO) Inclusions Formed in Ti-Added Steel Mills," Metallurgical and Materials
Transactions B, vol. 41B, no. August, pp. 790-797, 2010.
[52] T. Dubberstein, O. Volkova, S. Lachmann and P. Scheller, "Invesitgation on Steel Cleanliness of a
Heat Resistant Steel Grade - Characterization of Non-Metallic Inclusion in Ladle Treatment," in
8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[53] M. Harris, V. Richards, R. O'Malley and Lekakh, "Evolution of Non-Metallic Inclusions in
Foundry Steel Casting Processes," in SFAS Technical and Operations Conference , 2015.
[54] S. Yang, L. Zhang, Q. Wang and Y. Chen, "Transient Phenomena of Inclusions in Alloy Steels
During RH-VD-CC Process," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, 2012.
[55] S. Yang, L. Zhang, Q. Wang and Y. Chen, "Variation of Non-Metallic Inclusions in Molten Steel
During Refining Processes," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel , Budapest, 2012.
120
[56] O. Wijk and V. Brabie, "The Purity of Ferrosilicon and Its Influence on Inclusion Cleanliness of
Steel," ISIJ Internationl , vol. 36, no. Supplement, pp. 132-135, 1996.
[57] S. Story, G. Goldsmith, R. Fruehan, G. Casuccio, M. Potter and D. Williams, "Study of Casting
Issues using Rapid Inclusion Identification and Analysis," in AISTech Conference Proceedings,
Cleveland, 2006.
[58] A. Pitts, B. Tate and L. Nastac, "FeSi Residuals and Their Effects on Steel Cleanliness," Iron &
Steel Technology, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 93-101, 2015.
[59] D. Roy, P. Pistorius and R. Fruehan, "Effect of Silicon on the Desulfurization of Al-killed Steels:
Part II. Experimental Results and Plant Trials," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, 2013.
[60] D. Roy, C. Pistorius and R. Fruehan, "Effect of Silicon on the Desulfurization of Al-Killed Steels:
Part I. Mathematical Model," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol. 44B, no. October,
pp. 1086-1094, 2013.
[61] P. Iwamasa and R. Fruehan, "A Kinetic Model Demonstrating the Effect of FeO in the Slag and
Silicon in the Metal on Hot Metal Desulfurization," in Steelmaking Conference Proceedings,
Toronto, 1998.
[62] H. Asth, R. Tavares, S. Silva, R. Sampaio, O. Neto, K. B. F. Schwerdtfeger and L. Silva,
"Microcleanliness Improvements in VM2011 Steel and Evaluation of Benefits by Increasing the
Alumina Content in the Ladle Furnace Slag at the V&M do Brasil," in 8th International
Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[63] L. Zhang, Y. Ren, D. Hoajian, W. Yang and L. Sun, "Stability Diagram of Mg-Al-O System
Inclusions in Molten Steel," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol. 46B, August, pp.
1809-1825, 2015.
[64] W. Bielefeldt and A. Vilela, "Study of Formation and Modification of Inclusions in Al-Killed Ca-
Treated Steel," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, 2012.
[65] G. Yang, X. Wang, F. Huang, D. Yang, P. Wei and X. Hao, "Influence of Calcium Addition on
Inclusions in LCAK Steel with Ultrlow Sulfur Content," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions
B, vol. 46B, no. February, pp. 145-154, 2015.
[66] S. Yang, L. Zhang, L. Sun, J. Li and K. Peaslee, "Investigation on MgO-Al2O3 Based Inclusions
in Steels," AIST Transactions, no. August, pp. 245-258, 2012.
[67] N. Verma, R. Fruehan and P. Pistorius, "Modification of Alumina and Spinel Inclusions by
Calcium in Liquid Steel," CISR Spring Meeting, Carnegie Mellon University, 2011.
[68] S. He, G. Chen, Y. Guo, B. Shen and Q. Wang, "Morphology Control for Al2O3 Inclusion without
Ca Treatment in High-Aluminum Steel," Metallurgical and Materials Transcations B, vol. 46B,
April , pp. 585-594, 2015.
[69] F. Zhang, G. Li, B. Wang and Y. Zhang, "Effects of Ca Treatment on Magnetic Properties of High
Efficient NO Si Steel Sheets," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2011.
121
[70] A. Dash and P. Kaushik, "A Laboratory Study of Factors Affecting Sulfide Shape Control in Plate
Grade Steels," in AISTech Conference Proceedings Volume II, Indianapolis, 2011.
[71] S. Yoshida, M. Kubota, K. Miyanishi, Y. Abe and K. Ushioda, "Influence of Manganese and
Sulphur Concentration on Formation of Fine MnS," in 8th International Conference on Clean
Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[72] N. Verma, C. Pistorius, R. Fruehan, M. Potter, M. Lind and S. Story, "Transient Inclusion
Evolution During Modification of Alumina Inclusions by Calcium in Liquid Steel: Part I.
Background, Experimental Techniques and Analysis Methods," Metallurgical and Materials
Transactions B, vol. 42B, no. August, pp. 711-719, 2011.
[73] N. Verma, C. Pistorius, R. Fruehan, M. Potter, M. Lind and S. Story, "Transient Inclusion
Evolution During Modification of Alumina Inclusions by Calcium in Liquid Steel: Part II. Results
and Discussion," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol. 42B, August, pp. 720-729,
2011.
[74] AISE Steel Foundation, The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, 11th Edition, Pittsburgh: The
AISE Steel Foundation, 2003.
[75] A. Marins, W. Martins, C. Silva, I. Silva, J. Neto and V. Seshadri, "Assessing Inclusions Removal
in a Steelmaking Ladle: Plant Assessment and Modeling," in AISTech Conference Proceedings,
Atlanta, 2012.
[76] X. Wang, Q. Li, F. Huang, H. Li, J. Yang and X. Kang, "Control of B Type Non-Metallic
Inclusions in Linepipe Steel Plates," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest,
Hungary, 2012.
[77] D. Mazumdar and R. Guthrie, "Mixing Times and Correlations for Gas Stirred Ladle Systems,"
ISS Transactions, no. September, pp. 89-96, 1999.
[78] F. Ruby-Meyer, A. Karasev, P. Jonsson, M. Perez-Alonso and S. Baragiola, "Optimisation of
Sampling for Inclusion Assessment at Liquid Steel Stage," in 8th International Conference on
Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[79] S. Baragiola, A. Braconi, V. Colla and G. Nastasi, "Prediction of Final Cleanness Based on the
Assessment of Liquid Steel Inclusion Population," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel ,
Budapest, 2012.
[80] P. Kaushik, J. Lehmann and M. Nadif, "State of the Art in Control of Inclusions, Their
Characterization, and Future Requirements," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol.
43B, August, pp. 710-725, 2012.
[81] R. A. Falk.United States of America Patent 5,014,561, 14 May 1991.
[82] T. Junker and A. Reilly, "Revolutionary Approach to Consistently Obtain the Cleanest and Most
Representative Steel Samples from Molten Metal," in AISTech Conference Proceedings,
Indianapolis, 2007.
122
[83] W. Souronis, P. Turner and R. Rote, "Improvement in Sampling Process Precision by Means of an
Inert Atomsphere Sampling System at ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor East #2 Steel Producing," in
AISTech Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, 2012.
[84] M. Li, F. Wang, C. Li, Z. Yang, Q. Meng and S. Tao, "Effects of Cooling Rate and Al on MnS
Formation in Medium-Carbon Non-Quenched and Tempered Steels," International Journal of
Minerals, Metallurgy, and Materials, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 589-597, 2015.
[85] O. Ericsson, M. Lionet, A. Karasev, R. Inoue and P. Jonsson, "Changes in Inclusion
Characteristics During Sampling of Liquid Steel," Iron and Steelmaking, vol. 39, pp. 67-75, 2012.
[86] K. Beskow, P. Dayal, J. Bjorkvall, M. Nzotta and D. Sichen, "A New Approach for the Study of
Slag - Metal Interface in Steelmaking," Iron and Steelmaking, vol. 33, February, pp. 74-80, 2006.
[87] Y. Won and B. Thomas, "Simple Model of Microsegregation during Solidification of Steels,"
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, pp. 1755-1767, 2001.
[88] M. Lage and A. Costa e Silva, "Evaluating Segregation in HSLA Steels Using Computational
Thermodynamics," Journal of Materials Research and Technology, pp. 353-358, 2015.
[89] S. Gerasin and D. Kalisz, "Modeling of the Mn and S Microsegregation During Continuous
Casting of Rail Steel," Archives of Foundry Engineering, pp. 35-38, 2015.
[90] E. Scheil, "Bemerkungen zur schichtkristallbildung," Zeitschrift Metallkunde, vol. 34, no. ., pp. 70-
72, 1942.
[91] T. Clyne and W. Kurz, "Solute Redistribution During Solidification with Rapid Solid State
Diffusion," Metallurgical Transactions, p. 12A:965, 1981.
[92] H. Brody and M. Flemings, "Measurement of Solute Redistribution in Dendritic Solidification,"
Trans. Met. Soc., vol. 236, pp. 624-633, 1966.
[93] D. Janis, A. Karasev, P. Jonsson, T. Engkvist and G. Runnsjo, "Evaluation of Inclusion
Characteristics in Stainless Steel Samples Using PDA/OES at Outokumpu Stainless AB in
Avesta," in 8th International Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[94] A. Karasev, K. Nakajima and P. Jonsson, "Possibilites to Obtain Feedback on Inclusion
Characteristics During Ladle Refining," in 9th International Conference on Molten Slags, Fluxes,
and Salts, Beijing, 2012.
[95] M. Harris, O. Adaba, S. Lekakh, R. O'Malley and V. Richards, "Improved Methodology for
Automated SEM/EDS Non-Metallic Inclusions Analysis of Mini-Mill and Foundry Steels," in
AISTech Conference Proceedings, Cleveland, 2015.
[96] Y. Wang, X. Zuo, L. Zhang, S. Li, A. Dong and L. Damoah, "Entrapment of Inclusions in
Continuous Casting Billet: Industrial Observation and Modeling," in AISTech Conference
Proceedings, Pittsburgh, 2010.
123
[97] S. Abraham, J. Raines and R. Bodnar, "Development of an Inclusion Characterization
Methodology for Improving Steel Product Cleanliness," AIST Transactions, vol. 11, no. 2, 2014.
[98] J. Peter, K. Peaslee, D. Robertson and B. Thomas, "Experimental Study of Kinetic Processes
During the Steel Treatmeent at Two LMF's," US DOE DE-FC36-03ID14279.
[99] A. Harada, G. Miyano, N. Maruoka, H. Shibata and S. Kitamura, "Composition Change of
Inclusions During Ladle Treatment by the Reaction with Slag and Refractory," in 8th International
Conference on Clean Steel, Budapest, Hungary, 2012.
[100] Q. Shu, S. Lachmann, O. Volkova and P. Scheller, "Inclusion Development in Steel During
Metallurgical Ladle Treatment - A Process Simulation Model," in MetTec InSteel Conference,
Dusseldorf, 2011.
[101] Q. Shu, O. Volkova, S. Lachmann and P. Scheller, "Modification of Inclusion Composition in
Steel During Secondary Metallurgical Ladle Treatment - A Comprehensive Process Simulation
Model," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2011.
[102] S. Wang and S. Louhenkilpi, "EMS on Larger Sized Inclusions in the Billet/Bloom Casting," in
METEC, InSteelCon, STEELSIM, Dusseldorf, 2011.
[103] S. Yang, J. Li, C. Liu, L. Sun and H. Yang, "Motion Behavior of Nonmetal Inclusions at the
Interface of Steel and Slag. Part II: Model Application and Discussion," Metallurgical and
Materials Transactions B, vol. 45B, no. December, pp. 2453 - 2463, 2014.
[104] K. Graham and G. Irons, "Elaboration of the Cell Model for Application to Ladle Metallurgy
Slags," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh, 2008.
[105] J. Perez and G. Irons, "Inclusion Control Model in the Ladle Metallurgy Furnace," in AISTech
Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh, 2013.
[106] J. Rogler, L. Heaslip, D. Xu and M. Mehrvar, "Modeling of Ladle Bubbling for the Elmination of
Thermal Stratification: Part I - Without Heating," AIST Transactions, vol. April , pp. 81-93, 2004.
[107] J. Rogler, L. Heaslip, D. Xu and M. Mehrvar, "Modeling of Ladle Bubbling for the Elmination of
Thermal Stratification: Part II - With Heating," AIST Transactions, vol. May, pp. 93-99, 2004.
[108] K. Krishnapisharody and G. Irons, "A Model for Slag Eyes in Steel Refining Ladles Covered with
Thick Slag," Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol. 46B, February, pp. 191-198, 2015.
[109] K. Swartz, L. Hibbeler, B. Joyce and B. Thomas, "Numerical Investigation of Slag Entrainment,"
Association for Iron and Steel Technology, vol. July, pp. 79-90, 2015.
[110] K. Krishnakumar and G. Irons, "Water Model Study of the Spout and Eye Formation in a Gas-
Stirred Ladle," in ISSTech Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2003.
[111] S. Yang, L. Zhang, J. Li and K. Peaslee, "Fluid Flow and Steel Cleanliness in a Continuous
Casting Tundish and Mold," in AISTech Conference Proceedings - Volume II, Indianapolis, 2011.
124
[112] C. Pistorius, "Bubbles in Process Metallurgy," in Treatise on Process Metallurgy, Volume 2,
Elsevier Ltd. , 2014, pp. 179-196.
[113] S. Seetharaman, D. Sichen, P. Jonsson and L. Jonsson, "Modeling of Metallurgical Reactions
Towards Process Simulations," in 6th Japan-Nordic Countries Joint Symposium, Nagoya, 2000.
[114] B. Li, H. Yin, C. Zhou and F. Tsukihashi, "Modeling of Three-phase Flows and Behavior of
Slag/Steel Interface in an Argon Gas Stirred Ladle," ISIJ International, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 1704-
1711, 2008.
[115] L. Li, Z. Liu, M. Cao and B. Li, "Large Eddy Simulation of Bubbly Flow and Slag Layer Behavior
in Ladle with Discrete Phase Model (DPM) - Volume of Fluid (VOF) Coupled Model," JOM,
July, 2015.
[116] P. Shivaram, "CFD Modeling to Simulate Gas Stirring Process Using Bottom Plugs in a Steel
Ladle," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Cleveland, 2015.
[117] L. Costa, R. Tavares, B. Braga, D. Lima and H. Lino, "Mathematical Model of Multiphase Flow in
Argon Stirred Ladle and a New Technique for Prediction of the Mixing Time," in AISTech
Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, 2012.
[118] J. Alexis and J. Bjorkvall, "Mathematical Modeling of Stirring for an Optimized Ladle Furnace
Process," in AISTech Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, 2011.
[119] M. Andersson, L. Jonsson and P. Jonsson, "A Thermodynamic and Kinetic Model of Reoxidation
and Desulphurisation in the Ladle Furnace," ISIJ International , vol. 40, no.11, pp. 1080-1088,
2000.
[120] L. Nastac, Q. Cao, D. Zhang, A. Pitts and R. Williams, "3D CFD Modeling of the LMF System,"
The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, vol. CFD Modeling and Simulation in Materials
Processing 2016, pp. 187-194, 2016.
[121] J. Aoki, L. Zhang and B. Thomas, "Modeling of Inclusion Removal in Ladle Refining," in ICS
Proceedings, Montreal, 2005.
[122] J. Björkvall, Thermodynamic Study of Multicomponent Slags - A Model Approach, Stockholm,
Sweden: PhD Thesis, 2000.
[123] M. Nzotta, D. Sichen and S. Seetharaman, "A Study of the Sulfide Capacities of Iron-Oxide
Containing Slags," Metallurgical and Materials Transaction B, vol. 30B, no. October, pp. 909-
920, 1999.
[124] A. Pitts, J. Hallmark, P. Turner, B. Williams and L. Nastac, "Inclusion Evolution Mapping during
the LMF Process via a Multi-Depth Sampling Technique," in AISTech Conference Proceedings,
Pittsburgh, 2016.
[125] A. Pitts-Baggett, P. Turner, J. Hallmark, B. Williams and L. Nastac, "Method for Simultaneous
Sampling of Steel at Multiple Depths in the Refining Ladle," Iron and Steel Technology, January,
2017.
125
[126] G. Frigm, R. P. Stone, J. Plessers, R. S. Bogan and E. T. Turkdogan, "Accuracy of Hydrogen
Measurement in Liquid Steel with In-Situ Microprocessor-Based System," Process Controls &
Instrumentation, 1991.
[127] C. Grip and L. Jonsson, "Physical Behavior of Slag in a 107-Tonne Ladle: Production Scale
Experiments and Theoretical Simulation," Scandinavian Journal of Metallurgy, vol. 32, pp. 113-
122, 2003.
[128] J. Vlcek, V. Tomkova, H. Ovcacikova, F. Ovcacik, M. Topinkova and V. Matejka, "Slags from
Steel Production: Properties and Their Utilization," Metallurgia, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 329-333, 2013.
[129] E. Pretorius, "Refinement of Steel". USA Patent WO 2008/070360 A2, B22D 11/116 (2006.01),
PCT/US2007 /083125, 12, 2006.
[130] R. O'Malley, "Inclusion Evolution and Removal in Ladle Refining," in AISTech Conference
Proceedings, Nashville, 2017.
[131] Z. Zhang, A. Tilliander, A. Karasev and P. Jonsson, "Simulation of the Steel Sampling Process,"
ISIJ International , vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1746-1755, 2010.
[132] E. Pretorious, H. Oltmann and T. Cash, "The Effective Modification of Spinel inclusions by Ca
Treatment in LCAK steel," Iron and Steel Techonology, no. July, pp. 31-44, 2010.
[133] M. Hemmerlin, L. Paulard and G. and Schotter, "Determination of ultra low carbon and nitrogen
contents in steel: combustion versus electrical spark source optical emission spectrometry for steel
making process control," Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, pp. 282-286, 2003.
[134] S. Story and R. Asfanhani, "Control of Ca-Containing Inclusions in Al-Killed Steel Grades,"
United States Steel Corporation.
[135] L. Nastac, D. Zhang, Q. Cao, A. Pitts and R. Williams, "3D CFD Modeling of the LMF System,"
TMS, vol. CFD Modeling and Simulation in Materials Processing , pp. 187-194, 2016.
[136] A. Ishii, M. Tate, T. Ebiswawa and K. Kawakami, in Electric Furnace Conference Proceedings
(40th), Kansas City, 1982.