HATCH Iron and Steel - Hares Engineering

Methodology and Results of Ironmaking 

Technology Selection for Specific Site 

Conditions 

By Y. Gordon, J. Els, M. Freislich 

Conference of ITmk3 Family 

Kiev, Ukraine 

April 3 rd , 2009

Agenda 

• Methodology for Ironmaking technology selection 

• Technology flowsheets 

• Case study 1 – 2.5 million ton of Iron Units Plants 

• Case study # 2 – 800,000 t per annum hot metal production 

• Case study #3 – 5 million ton slab plant 

• Case study #4 5.7 million ton steel plant 

• Conclusions 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Methodology for Selection of Ironmaking Technology 

• As a substantial growth in hot metal, pig iron and DRI/HBI demand is expected in a 

future 

• A clear choice of the best product to produce cannot be made on the basis of only 

market requirements 

• The ideal product for specific company and site location will depend on the technoeconomical 

evaluation of the various Ironmaking technologies because the 

combined impact of technology, cost of production and transport will play a major 

role 

• For selection of the best ironmaking technology for specific site conditions Hatch 

has developed and applied for several projects sound methodology for technology 

selection, which is based on two stage approach 

• First stage includes evaluation of all available for specific conditions ironmaking 

technologies with following selection of one (maximum three) best technologies 

based on a simple pay back period, factored capital cost analysis and operating cost 

estimates 

• The second stage includes the detailed financial analysis for the best technologies 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Methodology for Selection of Ironmaking Technology, 

cont’d – First stage 

• Hatch uses predetermined process of technical and economic analyses to screen and 

eliminate the technologies (stage 1). This principles are as follows: 

– requirements for the final product 

– requirements and availability of raw materials 

– reductants and fuels 

– the principles of operation 

– the concept level flowsheet for each technology 

– the mass and energy balance 

– estimation of the consumption numbers 

– a review of scaling principles for each technology 

– analysis of the technical issues 

– risks assessment with respect to scaling 

– raw materials and product quality 

– state of the development of the technology, and complexity of operation 

– the operating cost for each technology estimated on the key cost drivers and 

best practice operating conditions 

– the capital costs estimate including core process units as well as any 

infrastructure directly associated with the process 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Methodology for Selection of Ironmaking Technology, 

cont’d – Second Stage 

• The financial analysis includes the following: 

• The analyses of tax and depreciation 

• The analyses of sustainable maintenance and provisions for project closure, analyses 

of project financing impact, the analyses of time based performance and an 

evaluation of the project viability 

• These aspects of the project, are best evaluated by an IRR/NPV estimate, based on 

discounted cash flow analyses 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Methodology Applied in Analysis 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009 

Evaluation completed in two 

stages: 

1. Filtering technologies 

• Market study 

• High level flowsheet 

• High level/ heat mass 

• Simple payback 

2. Detailed assessment 

• Function design 

specification 

• Bloc flow process 

diagram 

• Detailed project 

viability analyses

ITmk3 Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Blast Furnace Process Flowsheet 

Iron ore 

Limestone 

Coal 

Pellet plant 

Sinter plant 

Crusher 

Coke plant 

Blast 

Furnace 

Slag 



Hot metal

Midrex Coal Based Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Midrex Natural Gas Based Process Flowsheet 

Natural Gas 

Off-gas heat exchanger 

Natural gas reformer 



Pellets + Lump Ore 

Shaft furnace 

CDRI/HDRI/HBI

HYL Coal Based Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

HYL Natural Gas Based ZR Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Rotary Hearth Furnace + Melter Process Flowsheet 


Electrical Power 


Off Gas 

De-Vanadised Hot Metal 

Vanadium Slag 

Steelmaking Slag

Iron 

Ore 

(PC) 

Rotary Kiln + Smelter Process Flowsheet 

MULTI 

HEARTH 

FURNACE 

Air 

Burner 

Coal & 

Limestone 

Char coal, 

Dry Concentrate 

4 rotary kilns 

Off Gas 

ROTARY 

KILN 

4 Multi 

Hearth 

Furnaces 

Air 

AFTER 

BURNER 

WASTE 

HEAT 

BOILER 

Air 

RPCC 

TiO2 

Slag 

PC Adjustments 

POWER 

TO GRID 

MELTER 


Electrical Power 

2 Smelters 

Off Gas 


STACK 

Mill Scale, PC O2 

Hot Metal 

Off Gas 

De-Vanadised Hot Metal 

Iron 

Treatment & 

Ladle 

Weight 

Control 

2 vanadium recovery inits 

KOBM 

1 converter 

Vanadium Slag 

KOBM 

Secondary 

Baghouse 

O2, Lime, Coke, MgO, FeSi 

Steelmaking Slag 

Slag Bowl 

Steel 

Casting 

Ladle

Corex Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Finex Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

HIsmelt Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Romelt Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Technored Process Flowsheet 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Case Study 1 – 2.5 million ton Iron Unit Plant 

Composition of Concentrates 

Composition, % 

Fe total FeO CaO SiO 2 MgO Al 2 O 3 S MnO TiO 2 P 2 O 5 Size, 

mm 

C1 68,72 29,3 1,4 1,47 0,33 0,85 0,1 0,18 0,14 0,08 < 0,2 

C2 64,35 21,95 0,35 6,41 0,71 0,66 0,003 0,68 0,13 0,11

Case Study 1– 2.5 million ton Iron Unit Plant 

Anthracite coal composition (Coal A) 

Basic parameters, % 

S C H 2 O Volatile Ash 

Submitted by Client 0.3 81.2 4.0 13.5 10.0 

Normalized, dry 

basis (Hatch) 

77.55 12.89 9.55 

This coal is a good quality and is suitable for all evaluating processes 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009


Bituminous coals composition 



Basic parameters, % 

S C VM Ash 

BC1 0.35-0.46 75-85 24-42 17-43 

BC1 Most probable 

(Hatch) 

75 25 30 

Normalized (Hatch) 57 19.2 23 

BC2 0.16-1 61-77 39-57 10-23.4 

BC2 Most probable 

(Hatch) 

61 39 17 

Normalized (Hatch) 51 33 14.5 

The BC1 was used as the alternative coal for the study because of higher fixed carbon. 

It is a medium volatile coal, and is available from local sources. However the coal price may 

drive to more profitable economical indexes at the poorer coals use despite the lower carbon 

content. Blending of 22.6% of anthracite with the 77.4% of coal from the BC2 provides the 

same content of the fixed carbon as in the BC1, but with higher volatiles content.


Capacity, Utilization, Raw Materials, Product Quality 

Technology BF Midrex & 

Coal 

Typical unit capacity 

(*1000 tpa) 

HYL & 

Coal 



HIsmelt Romelt HYL & 

Gas 

Midrex 

& Gas 

3,000 1,300 1,100 830 300 1,75* 1,800 

Utilisation (%) 97 91.3 91.3 92 92.3 91.3 91.3 

Ore chemistry: 

%Fe (tot) 

%P (max) 

%S (max) 

%Na2O + K2O Ore Size, (mm) 

Pellets (reduction unit) 

Lump (reduction unit) 

Fines (reduction unit) 

>53 


Capacity, Utilization, Raw Materials, Product Quality 

Technology Technored COREX FINEX 4RK & 

Smelter 



2RH & 

Smelter 

ITmk3 

Unit capacity (*1000 tpa) 700 1,500 1,500 750 1,000 550,000 

Utilisation (%) 92 92.5 92.5 85 80 >94 

Ore chemistry: 

%Fe (tot) 

%P (max) 

%S (max) 

% Na2O + %K2O Ore Size (mm) 

Pellets (reduction unit) 

Lump (reduction unit) 

Fines (reduction unit) 

65 


Process sensitivity to sulphur and phosphorus 

Process S, %Wt S, %Wt, 

requirement 



P, %Wt P, %Wt 

requirement 

C1 Maximum C1 Concentrate 

Technored 0.1 N/A 0.035 0.05 Y 

Midrex with Gas 0.1 0.015 0.035 0.03 N 

HYL with Gas 0.1 0.03 0.035 0.03 N 

Midrex with Coal 0.1 0.01 0.035 0.03 N 

HYL with Coal 0.1 0.02 0.035 0.03 N 

HIsmelt 0.1 N/A 0.035 N/A Y 

Rotary Kiln and Smelter 0.1 0.1 0.035 0.08 Y 

Rotary Hearth and Smelter 0.1 0.12 0.035 0.08 Y 

Romelt 0.1 N/A 0.035 N/A Y 

FINEX 0.1 0.6 0.035 0.08 Y 

COREX 0.1 0.6 0.035 0.08 Y 

ITmk3 0.1 0.1 0.035 0.05 Y 

Blast Furnace 0.1 0.6 0.035 0.08 Y


Two Most Favourable Technologies 

• ITmk3 process and Rotary Hearth – Smelter 

combination were selected as most favourable 

technologies for detailed financial analysis 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009


Results of financial modelling 

• Return on investment (IRR) and net present value 

(NPV) for ITmk3 are at acceptable level in industry and 

are somewhat 5-% higher than for combination of Rotary 

hearth furnace plus melter. Because of this ITmk3 

process was recommended as the best technology in this 

case study 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Case Study 2 –, 0.8 million ton Hot metal production 

Results of financial modelling (rotary kiln based 

process) 

• Client requested Hatch to evaluate NZS flowsheet for processing of their fine ore 

• The ore is a good quality and does not contain titania and vanadium 

• Hatch evaluated two major options: NZS flowsheet and long rotary kiln without MHF 

NPV 

Scenario 

1 

Scenario 

2 

Scenario 

3 



Scenario 

4 

Scenario 

5 

Scenario 

6 

Scenario 

7 

US$ 

millions ($309) ($317) ($329) ($281) ($330) ($243) ($315) 

IRR % -4.3% -5.5% -8.2% -1.5% -8.5% -2.7% -4.2% 

Simple 

payback Years 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 

Hatch did not recommend to the client to proceed with this project

Case Study 3 – 5 MTPA Slab Plant Study 

Project Overview 

• Hatch conducted a high level conceptual study for a 5 MTPA 

slab plant subsequent to a plant site location study. 

• The project will take advantage of local circumstances, such as: 

– Availability of iron ore 

– Inexpensive green electrical power 

– Opportunity of exporting gases to an adjacent industrial 

establishment 

• Design principles: 

– Maximize use of internally generated gas for chemical reduction as 

a first priority and as a fuel gas as a second priority 

– Flexibility for use lower quality iron ore and coal 

– Only industrially proven technologies 

– Selection of the most suitable capacity of the plant for each 

selected production route in the range of 5-5.7 million ton of slabs 

– No purchase any iron bearing raw materials except iron or 

concentrate 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009


Basis of Study 

• 5.7 Mtpa slabs selected to utilize 100% of largest COREX 

capacity (Two C-3000 units) 

• 5.0 Mtpa slabs selected for blast furnace option 

• Local supply of iron ore and pellets 

• Natural gas is not available in the region 

• Three process options studied: 

1. Coke Plant/Pellet Plant/Blast Furnace/BOF Steelmaking/Slab 

Casting 

2. Coke Plant/ (1/3) Pellet Plant/Sinter Plant/Blast Furnace/BOF 

Steelmaking/Slab Casting 

3. Pellet Plant/COREX® Plant/Midrex/Conarc® Steelmaking/Slab 

Casting 

• ITmk3 plant would be 11 units for 5 million ton slab 

production – significant required space 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009


Definition – Option 1 

Option 1 

• Production Capacity: 5 Mtpa Conventional Thickness Slab 

• Process Route: Pellet Plant/Coke Plant/Blast Furnace/BOF Steel 

Making/ Slab Casting 

• Plant units: 

- Coke plant: By-product type coke plant with production capacity of 

1.9 Mtpa 

- Blast Furnace: Two 2.8 MTPA blast furnaces 

- Steel Making Shop: Two 330t converters 

- Casting Shop: Two 2 strand slab casting machines 

- Ancillary Systems: All plant operation supporting systems 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009



Option 2 

• Production Capacity: 5 Mtpa Conventional Thickness Slab 

• Process Route: Sinter Plant/Coke Plant/Blast Furnace/BOF Steel 

Making/ Slab Casting 


- Sinter Plant: production capacity: 6.6 MTPA 

- Coke plant: By-product type coke plant with production capacity of 

1.7 Mtpa 

- Blast Furnace: Two 2.8 Mtpa blast furnaces 

- Sinter – Pellet rate: 70:30 

- Steel Making Shop: Two 330 t converters 




Kiev, Ukraine 2009



Option 3: 

• Production Capacity: 5.7 MTPA Conventional Thickness Slab 

• Process Route: COREX ® + DR/ EAF Steel Making/ Slab Casting 


- COREX® plant: 2x C – 3000 units 

- DR plant: 2x 7.2 m diameter Midrex ® DR furnaces 

- One hot metal desulphurization station 

- Steel Making Shop: 3 x 235 ton CONARC ® electric arc furnaces 




Kiev, Ukraine 2009


CAPEX 

Option 1 

BF Route with Pellet Plant 

Option 2 

BF Route with Sinter Plant 



Option 3 

Corex + Midrex 

($US 000) ($US 000) ($US 000) 

Coke Making 733,000 668,000 - 

Pellet Plant 1,300,000 379,000 1,452,000 

Sinter Plant - 786,000 - 

Iron Making 1,840,000 1,830,000 1,700,000 

Steel Making 1,150,000 1,160,000 1,750,000 

General Site Facilities 

and Utilities 761,000 761,000 748,000 

TOTAL ($US 000) 5,784,000 5,584,000 5,650,000 

Annual Production 

(Mtpa) 

5.0 5.0 5.7 

Unit Cost ($US/t slab) 1,157 1,117 988 

ITmk3 based slab plant capital cost would be maximum 5 billon $ US to produce 5 million 

ton of slab with the same configuration of steelmaking as at Corex case or 1000 $ US/t of slab


OPEX 

Option 1 

BF Route with Pellet 

Plant 



Option 2 

BF Route with Sinter 

Plant 

Option 3 


Coke Making $US/tonne coke 402 402 - 

Pellet Plant $US/tonne pellet 108 - 106 

Sinter Plant $US/tonne sinter - 100 - 

Iron Making 

$US/tonne hot metal 349 345 403 

$US/tonne DRI - - 231 

Steel Making $US/tonne slab 507 499 490


Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions 

Option 1 

BF Route with Pellet 

Plant 



Option 2 

BF Route with 

Sinter Plant 

Option 3 


Power (kWh/t slab) 475 432 812 

PCI/Thermal Coal (t/t slab) 0.205 0.239 0.516 

Coking Coal (t/t slab) 0.530 0.488 0.026 

Input Energy (GJ/t slab) 21.4 20.7 14.7 

Export Energy (GJ/t slab) 4.0 4.5 0 

Net Energy Demand (GJ/t slab) 17.4 16.2 14.7 

CO 2 at plant (kg/t slab) 1538 1459 1540 

CO 2 in Export gases (kg/t slab) 652 711 0 

Total CO 2 Emissions 1 (kg/t slab) 2190 2170 1540 

ITmk3 total fuel requirements are ~ 400-440 coal and 140-150 Nm3 natural gas – could 

compete with all three production routes in enrgy required and CO2 emissions


Export Gases 

Option 1 Option 2 

Export Gases (10 6 Nm3/y) (10 6 GJ/y) (10 6 Nm3/y) (10 6 GJ/y) (10 6 Nm3/y) (10 6 GJ/y) 

BFG/COREX gas 3840 14.4 4132 14.3 0 0.00 

COG/DR gas 131 2.6 202 4.0 

BOFG 414 3.2 414 3.2 - - 

Total 4385 20.2 4748 21.5 0 0.0 



Option 3


Process Routes Comparison 

Pros 

Cons 

Option 1 

BF Route with Pellet Plant 

� Fast ramp-up 

� Proven technology 

� Synergy with pellet plant 

� High CAPEX 

� High CO2 footprint 

� By-products to sell 

Option 2 

BF Route with Sinter Plant 

� See Option 1 

�Avoid grinding pellet feed 

�Use lower cost 

concentrate 

� See Option 1 

�Sinter plant emissions 



Option 3 


� Low cost coal 

�Lowest coal consumption 

� Minimum excess gas 

�Lowest OPEX 

�Take advantage of pellet 

quality 

� Slower ramp-up 

�Sensitivity to metallurgical 

coal price premium


Conclusions and Recommendations Case Study 2 

• Corex is most attractive considering POSCO operation strategy: 

– POSCO use higher grade iron ore than Saldanha and have a lower 

total fuel rate 

– Least flared gas 

– OPEX cost can be lower depending on coal prices 

– Better environmental footprint 

• COREX capital needs more investigation 

• Further develop the COREX option, especially capital costs for 

the Port Cartier site 

• Investigate potential to make a larger heat size with CONARC 

process 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

Case Study 4 – 5.7 MTPA Slab Plant Study Economical 

Comparison – 5.7 MTPA Slab Plant for All Three 

Options 

CAPEX 

OPEX 

Simple Payback Period 

Units 

$Million US 

$US/t slab 

years 



Option 1 

5,760 

494 

9.53 

Option 2 

5,660 

505 

10.45 

Conclusion: 

Option one becomes the most economically attractive in the case of 

the same plant capacity 

Option 3 

5,280 

518 

11.30

Conclusions 

• Methodology for selection of ironmaking technology for specific site 

conditions is developed 

• This methodology was applied for various regions with respect to the 

specific limitations and client demands 

• Selection of ironmaking technology significantly depends on plant 

location, raw materials and fuel/reductants availability, quality and 

pricing, market conditions and specific limitations 

• ITmk3 process is a new and very promising player amongst other 

ironmaking technologies 

• In the case of production only iron units in amount up to 2.5-3 million ton 

per annum – ITmk3 is a winning process 

• Better understanding of nuggets application in steelmaking is required 

• This will help to promote ITmk3 as an integrated process rather than stand 

alone ironmaking technology for greater steelmaking plant capacity 


Kiev, Ukraine 2009

HATCH Iron and Steel - Hares Engineering

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?