ISIJ International, Advance

ISIJ Publication
International,
by Advance
J-STAGE,Publication ISIJ International, Vol. 62 (2022), No. 6, pp. 1–10
DOI: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2021-574
by J-STAGE
ISIJ International, J-Stage Advanced
ISIJ International,
Publication, DOI:
Advance
http://dx.doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2015-@@@
Publication by J-Stage
https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2021-574

Assessment of Blast Furnace Operational Constraints in the

Presence of Hydrogen Injection

Nathan BARRETT,1) Subhasish MITRA,1) Hamid DOOSTMOHAMMADI,1) Damien O’DEA,2) Paul ZULLI,3)
Sheng CHEW4) and Tom HONEYANDS1)*

1)  Centre for Ironmaking Materials Research, School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308
Australia.
2)  BHP, 480 Queen St, Brisbane, QLD, 4000 Australia.
3)  University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong NSW, 2522 Australia.
4)  BlueScope Steel, Coke and Ironmaking Technology, Port Kembla, NSW, 2505 Australia.
(Received on December 8, 2021; accepted on January 19, 2022; J-STAGE Advance published date:
March 24, 2022)

Present day, the production of hot metal (HM) via the blast furnace route remains an integral part of the
global steel industry. With global pressure to curb greenhouse gas emissions, injection of hydrogen is
considered a promising solution while ironmaking transitions to alternate technologies. A comprehensive
heat and mass balance model calibrated to an operating blast furnace was used to assess the operational
limits of hydrogen injection through the tuyeres, replacing Pulverised Coal Injection (PCI). Constrained by
a minimum top gas temperature and minimum Raceway Adiabatic Flame Temperature (RAFT), the maxi-
mum injection rate was determined to be 19.5 kg-H2/t-HM when replacing 37.4 kg-PCI/t-HM (i.e. a replace-
ment ratio of 1.9 kg-PCI/kg-H2 or 1.54 kg-C/kg-H2). At the maximum hydrogen injection rate, the specific
CO2,eq emissions were seen to decrease by 8% in the top gas. In the case where the increased level of
hydrogen increases stack reduction efficiency, the maximum hydrogen injection rate is decreased, while
the replacement ratio is increased significantly. A maximum hydrogen injection rate of 14.3 kg-H2/t-HM
with a replacement ratio of 4.5 kg-PCI/kg-H2 was achieved when the stack reduction efficiency was 100%,
with a CO2,eq emission decrease of 14%. The optimal scenario for injection of hydrogen was determined
to be maintaining a constant production rate, allowing the RAFT to decrease, and replacing PCI.

KEY WORDS: blast furnace; hydrogen injection; modelling; pulverised coal injection; replacement ratio;
heat and mass balance; greenhouse gas emissions.

pure (green) hydrogen is considered advantageous as it can

1. Introduction
The blast furnace has long supported the high demand
for Hot Metal (HM) in steel production, with incremen-
tal improvements in efficiency and productivity through
application of new technologies and processes. With global
pressure to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the steel industry
may need to transition to alternate technologies that enable
lower levels of emissions to be achieved in a holistic way
i.e. across the whole steelworks site. During this transition
however, multiple strategies have been proposed to decrease
the direct emissions of the blast furnace, such as iron carbon
agglomerates, hydrogen enrichment, and oxygen blast fur-
nace with top gas recycling.1) One of these strategies which
is considered to be achievable in the near future is hydro-
gen (green) injection into the blast furnace.1–4) Injection of
* Corresponding author: E-mail: tom.a.honeyands@newcastle.edu.au
be generated on site (no geographical dependence as with
natural gas) and does not disturb the integrated steelworks
energy balance as with coke ovens gas.5)
The blast furnace process relies heavily on coke and
auxiliary fuels for generation of heat and carbon monoxide
reducing gas (from combustion). The primary purpose of
introducing additional hydrogen into the blast furnace is
to replace a portion of the carbon-based reduction with
hydrogen. This aids in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions,
as hydrogen produces water as a by-product of reduction
instead of carbon dioxide. However, as coke also provides a
gas permeable structure at high temperature, decreasing the
coke rate is limited using hydrogen, with the lowest coke
rates achieved being approximately 260 kg-coke/t-HM.6) In
addition, indirect reduction with hydrogen is endothermic,
altering the heat distribution within the furnace.7)
Numerical models of the blast furnace are a common

© 2022 The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
tool used for operator guidance and development of new
operating conditions. In recent years, modern blast fur-
naces have adopted various auxiliary injectant practices
in order to decrease cost and optimise material utilisation.
Pulverised Coal Injection (PCI) and Natural Gas (NG) injec-
tion are two commonly used auxiliary fuels, both of which
increase the hydrogen content of the blast furnace. With
the current focus on hydrogen enrichment, multiple stud-
ies have utilised numerical models to understand the effect
of injecting hydrogen into the tuyeres of the blast furnace.
As well as this, operational trials of hydrogen injection are
underway, such as the single tuyere injection performed by
Thyssenkrupp.8)
With injected hydrogen entering and exiting the raceway
in the same form, the initial effect of hydrogen injected
at a temperature below that of the blast is to decrease the
Raceway Adiabatic Flame Temperature (RAFT). Because of
this, higher injection temperatures are clearly beneficial to
decreasing the impact of hydrogen in the raceway.9) How-
ever, with hydrogen heating technology still in its infancy,
heating of hydrogen is expected to incur significant logisti-
cal and financial difficulty.10)
It has been demonstrated that when operating with
hydrogenous fuels (such as PCI and NG), the minimum
RAFT can be significantly decreased. Geerdes (2016)
accredits this to the increased hydrogen content of the bosh
gas decreasing the total ‘chemical and thermal’ energy
requirement of the lower zone, due to the decrease in direct
reduction of wustite (FeO) with coke.
When assessing injection of hydrogen into the blast fur-
nace, one approach follows that of Nogami, et al. (2012).
This involves maintaining the sensible heat supply rate to
the lower zone nearly constant through a constant bosh gas
flow rate and RAFT, typically achieved by adjusting oxygen
enrichment and blast flow rate.10,12–15) Maintaining this con-
dition when injecting hydrogen has been shown to increase
production rate and decrease the top gas temperature. Tang,
et al. (2021) attributed these changes to the higher degree
of reduction decreasing residence time, and increased
oxygen enrichment burning more coke and creating more
space for the burden descent. When assessing injection of
unheated hydrogen under the system constraints described
above, Castro, et al. (2017) determined 20.25 kg-H2/t-HM
replaces 27 kg-coke/t-HM (in Case 2 of their study) and
Tang, et al. (2020) determined 10.8 kg-H2/t-HM replaces
45 kg-coke/t-HM, corresponding to replacement ratios of
1.3 and 4.2 kg-coke/kg-H2 respectively. Sato, et al. (2015)
determined a maximum hydrogen injection of 26 kg-H2/t-
HM with a constant RAFT, replacing 66 kg-coke/t-HM
(replacement ratio of 2.5 kg-coke/kg-H2).
Spanlang, et al. (2020) used a Rist based heat and mass
balance model to assess coke replacement with hydrogen.
In their study, the RAFT was allowed to decrease, with the
top gas temperature remaining constant. Under these con-
straints, 18 kg-H2/t-HM was shown to decrease the RAFT
by 278°C and replace 54 kg-coke/t-HM (replacement ratio
of 3 kg-coke/kg-H2).
The large range of replacement ratios seen in literature
demonstrates that the extent to which hydrogen can replace
coke is dependent on many operational factors and con-
straints. That is, the replacement ratio reflects other changes
© 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
made to the modelled operations in conjunction with
hydrogen injection, so it is important that these changes are
clearly identified and assessed.
Based on a comprehensive two-stage heat and mass
balance model,18) this study aims to assess the operational
limits of hydrogen injection and determine the extent to
which hydrogen can replace carbon in the blast furnace. As
coke rate is already optimised to provide for permeability,
the primary focus of this study is replacement of PCI with
hydrogen. As well as this, the use of hydrogenous fuels
has been shown to decrease the thermal requirement of the
lower zone, and it is thus appropriate to assess the limits
of hydrogen injection with a decreased RAFT. Finally, the
replacement ratio of carbon by hydrogen will be investi-
gated.
2. Methodology
2.1. Heat and Mass Balance Modelling
Numerical modelling is a common tool used to simulate
the internal state of the blast furnace and to predict a range
of operating parameters that cannot easily be measured. A
range of modelling techniques have been developed over
the years, with increasingly sophisticated models being
developed for specific purposes.19) A comprehensive two
stage heat and mass balance model with facility to calibrate
to an operating blast furnace was used in this study.18) The
model was calibrated to an operating blast furnace, of which
the operating conditions were used as a Base Case scenario.
The model operates under the assumption that a chemical
and thermal reserve exists in the furnace, in which the gas
and wustite are in near-equilibrium.20) This is encompassed
by a thermal reserve that extends downwards to the bound-
ary at which the rate of solution loss becomes significant,
and which divides the furnace into two ‘stages’ through
which the heat and mass balance can be performed. The split
into upper and lower zones is defined at the thermal pinch
point where solid and gas temperatures are closest. At this
point, the solid and gas are both assumed to be at 1 000°C.
The chemical reserve zone composition is calculated at a set
solid temperature of 850°C, with the gas temperature deter-
mined by the upper zone heat balance. A general overview
of calculation regions used in the model is shown in Fig. 1.
Stack Reduction Efficiency (SRE) describes the extent
to which the ferrous burden approaches equilibrium with
the gas in the chemical reserve zone. Since the SRE in the
Base Case is determined by calibration to an operating blast
furnace, it follows that predictions made when assessing
hydrogen injection at the same equilibrium temperature of
850°C will be consistent. The SRE of the Base Case sce-
nario was 0.91.
The injectant stream includes hot blast air, steam, oxygen
enrichment, PCI (with nitrogen carrier gas) and hydrogen
where appropriate. Some constant parameters were consid-
ered to be:
•  Hot blast air entering at 1 153°C
•  Hot blast air natural humidity of 10.6 g/Nm3
•  Hot metal temperature of 1 522°C
•  Hot metal carbon content of 5.0%
•  Slag temperature of 1 572°C
•  Slag basicity (CaO/SiO2) of 1.2
2
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6

•  Slag MgO content of 5.9% injectants, coke is graphitised as it descends through the
The minimum bosh gas (gas leaving the raceway) rate furnace, decreasing in Gibbs energy.22,23) This is explicitly
is determined by the gas requirement to reach equilibrium accounted for through the heat of graphitisation, which
with wustite, which is in turn dictated by the hot metal is assumed to be recovered at the raceway at the rate of
production. An implication of this is that the bosh gas and − 753 kJ/kg-C in the present modelling.
production rate are inherently linked and cannot be simul-
taneously constrained. 2.2. Heat and Mass Balance Constraints
The top gas temperature and composition are a result When assessing the injection of hydrogen into the blast
of heat transfer and reactions occurring between the furnace, key operational constraints must still be met, such
gas and the solids in the shaft (above the thermal pinch as hot metal and slag temperatures to maintain fluidity.
point). The composition of the rising gas, specifically the As well as this, assumptions made in the development of
oxidation degree of the hydrogenous and carbonaceous the two-stage heat and mass balance model, such as the
CO2 approach to equilibrium of the gas with Wustite in the
species (commonly termed utilisation, ηCO = ,
CO + CO2 chemical reserve zone, are assumed to remain valid under
H2O hydrogen enrichment. As stated, in this study, assumptions
ηH 2 = ) is particularly complex, as it is the result
H2 + H2O for key parameters under enriched hydrogen conditions
of multiple simultaneous reactions between both the gas and were extrapolated from a real blast furnace operation, used
solid phases. Some of these reactions, such as the Water Gas as a Base Case. The composition of coke and PCI used in
Shift Reaction (WGSR) can be catalysed in the presence of all cases are presented in Table 1. The operating conditions
specific associations of iron.21) Consequently, the influence of the Base Case blast furnace are shown in Table 3.
of hydrogen enrichment on the relative utilisation rates of The primary differences between the four cases were the
hydrogen (ηH2) and carbon monoxide (ηCO) has not been unconstrained variables used to close the various balances
well-characterised. For this study, the hydrogen utilisation being performed (primarily carbon, oxygen, iron and heat
for all cases was assumed to be linearly proportional to the balances). The primary controls of each case are shown in
carbon monoxide utilisation, such that ηH2 = 1.006·ηCO, as Table 2 and discussed in detail below. A simplified over-
determined for the Base Case.
It is worth noting that the RAFT calculation involves Table 2.  Primary constraints and variables for each case.
solid coke, for which the sensible heat input is calculated at
75% of the RAFT (making the calculation implicit). While Case Number 1 2 3 4
the input enthalpy to the raceway can be well defined for Production 7 748 t/d 431 784 Nm /hr 3
7 748 t/d 7 748 t/d
Constraint hot metal Bosh Gas Flow hot metal hot metal
Carbon Source
PCI PCI Coke PCI
Varied
Stack Reduction
0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00
Efficiency

Table 3. Operating parameters of Base Case and at maximum

hydrogen injection for all cases.

Parameter Base Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Production Rate (t/d) 7 748 7 748 7 195 7 748 7 748
Hydrogen Rate (kg/t-HM) 0 19.54 18.82 18.98 14.29
Coke Rate (kg/t-HM) 364 364 364 333 364
PCI Rate (kg/t-HM) 140 102.6 104.1 140 75.6
Slag Rate (kg/t-HM) 313 307 307 306 303
Blast Air Rate
899 790 802 720 888
(Nm 3/t-HM)
Oxygen Enrichment (%) 2.14 4.03 3.65 6.18 0.49
Bosh Gas Flow Rate
431 784 464 043 431 784 452 809 454 989
(Nm3/h)
Top Gas Temperature (°C) 138 119 119 118 118
Fig. 1. Overall description of two-stage blast furnace heat and
RAFT (°C) 2 251 2 051 2 051 2 050 2 051
mass balance. (Online version in color.)

Table 1.  Composition of coke and PCI used for modelling.

Component C (wt%) H 2 (wt%) N2 (wt%) O (wt%) SiO2 (wt%) Al2O3 (wt%) CaO (wt%) MgO (wt%) Total Ash (wt%)
Coke 85.92 0.40 1.27 – 7.30 3.61 0.22 0.07 12.41
PCI 80.77 3.84 1.53 3.79 4.61 3.41 0.28 0.11  9.77

3 © 2022 ISIJ
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
view of the calculation method with these constraints is
shown in Fig. 2.
Cold hydrogen injection is known to decrease the RAFT,
which can be maintained through the use of oxygen enrich-
ment at the expense of top gas temperature.10) Because of
this, a minimum top gas temperature and RAFT were estab-
lished. The minimum top gas temperature was set as 118°C
to be maintained above the acid dew point of the gas, and a
minimum RAFT was established as 200°C below the Base
Case RAFT (minimum of 2 050°C).11,24,25) These constraints
were met in a stage-wise fashion, with the RAFT being
maintained until the minimum top gas temperature had been
reached, before being allowed to decrease to the constrained
limit. These constraints were applied in all cases assessed.
A key point of the modelling in this study was to maintain
consistency in the blast furnace operation between the Base
Case and cases assessing hydrogen injection. Hence, operat-
ing parameters such as hot blast temperature and hot metal
temperature were maintained constant in all cases.
Steam injection is used for rapid thermal control of the
raceway and as such, may not be practically constrained to
the hot metal production. Despite this, to maintain consis-
tency and comparability between cases assessing hydrogen
injection the steam rate was maintained proportional to the
hot metal production. The effect of constraining the steam
rate to the hot blast rate and a fixed daily rate on the replace-
ment ratio of hydrogen was separately assessed.
As discussed, a common constraint applied to the blast
Fig. 2.  Overview of calculation method.
© 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
furnace when assessing hydrogen injection is to maintain
the bosh gas flow rate in combination with a constant RAFT
resulting in an increase in furnace production rate.10,12,14)
In the present modelling, with the minimum top gas tem-
perature and RAFT established, separate scenarios were
evaluated to compare hydrogen injection under a constant
production rate (Case 1) and constant bosh gas flow rate
(Case 2). With modern blast furnaces operating close to
minimum coke rates, it was of most interest to simulate the
replacement of PCI with hydrogen. As such, for both cases,
the coke rate was maintained constant.
The primary controls over the furnace operating parame-
ters were thus: the blast flow rate, an unconstrained variable
used to control furnace production rate in Case 1, or bosh
gas flow rate in Case 2; oxygen enrichment (unconstrained
variable used to control RAFT or top gas temperature); and
PCI rate (unconstrained variable used to meet the carbon
balance and determine the change in fuel requirements
under hydrogen injection).
As previous studies have focussed on replacing coke
with hydrogen, an additional scenario was undertaken for
comparison. This case, Case 3 in Table 2, had identical
constraints to Case 1 except for the replacement of coke
instead of PCI (i.e. constant PCI rate).
It is expected that the characteristics of hydrogen reduc-
tion in the furnace will lead to an increased SRE.7) This
is supported by limited experimental studies which have
indicated that the utilisation of hydrogen increases.26–28)
4
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
However, as the effect of hydrogen on the SRE has not
been well-quantified, the SRE was maintained constant in
Cases 1, 2 and 3. An additional case, Case 4, was under-
taken to determine the sensitivity of the system to the SRE.
Constraints in Case 4 were identical to Case 1 (constant
production rate), with the maximum hydrogen injection rate
re-evaluated at the maximum theoretical SRE of 1.
3. Results and Discussion
Following the determination of the maximum hydrogen
injection for each case, the conditions of key stages in the
blast furnace, namely the hot blast, bosh gas and top gas
conditions are presented. Fuel replacement behaviour and
how it is influenced by steam control is discussed. Finally,
the sensitivity of the results to the SRE is presented.
3.1. Determining Hydrogen Injection Limits
Figure 3 shows the changes in constrained parameters
(top gas temperature and RAFT) with increasing hydrogen
injection for Cases 1, 2 and 3. It should be noted that Case
4 is not shown as it was only calculated at the maximum
possible hydrogen injection.
In Fig. 3, the stage-wise approach to the minimum RAFT
and top gas temperature is evident. At approximately 3 kg-
H2/t-HM the top gas temperature falls to the constrained
limit of 118°C, while the RAFT is maintained constant. At
higher rates of hydrogen injection, the RAFT progressively
decreases until the limit of 200°C drop in RAFT is reached
at approximately 19.5 kg-H2/t-HM (Case 1) and 19 kg-H2/t-
HM (for Cases 2 and 3). Thus, the hydrogen injection limit
was seen to only vary by 2.5% between the three scenarios,
with the maximum hydrogen injection being 19.5 kg-H2/t-
HM in Case 1 at a constant production rate. The similarity
between each case in Fig. 3 indicates that with this combina-
tion of applied constraints (bosh gas/production rate, PCI/
coke replacement), the effect of changing parameters as a
consequence of hydrogen injection on the RAFT and top gas
temperature (and thus the maximum hydrogen injection) is
similar. The limit of 19.5 kg observed in this study is consis-
tent with the results of Sato, et al. (2015) who showed that
hydrogen injection must be less than 26 kg-H2/t-HM based
on heat flow ratio, if the RAFT was kept constant.
Fig. 3. Effect of increasing hydrogen injection on constrained
parameters (top gas temperature and RAFT). (Online ver-
sion in color.)
5 © 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
Table 3 shows the operating parameters of all cases at
the determined maximum hydrogen injection rate. Uncon-
strained control variables are shaded grey.
3.2. Hot Blast Conditions
The hot blast rate and oxygen enrichment were primary
controls to compensate the thermal effects of hydrogen
in the furnace. Specific flow rates of nitrogen in the hot
blast, as well as the total gaseous injectant volume (Air +
Hydrogen + Steam + Oxygen enrichment) and degree of
oxygen enrichment are shown in Fig. 4.
In all cases the general trend of the total volume of gas
injected is similar. For hydrogen injection rates less than
~3 kg-H2/t-HM, where the RAFT is maintained through the
increase in oxygen enrichment, the total blast volume is seen
to decrease leading to the decrease in top gas temperature
seen in Fig. 3. As the hydrogen injection rate increases,
where the RAFT is allowed to decrease (Fig. 3), the total
volume of injected gas increases. This increase in the total
gas injected counteracts the negative effects of oxygen
enrichment on the top gas temperature.
In Fig. 4 the blast conditions for Case 1 and 2 are similar,
however when comparing these cases with Case 3 some key
differences between replacing coke and PCI are evident.
With the decrease in coke charged to the top of the blast
furnace, the sensible heat requirement of the rising gas
to heat the material in the upper stack (above the thermal
reserve) is also decreased.29) Because of this, in general, the
impact of oxygen enrichment on the top gas temperature is
decreased, allowing a higher oxygen enrichment. The effects
of this higher oxygen enrichment are seen in the total blast
rate and nitrogen content of the blast, which are lower than
Cases 1 and 2.
3.3. Bosh Conditions
Shown in Fig. 5 is the bosh gas flow rate and production
rate with increasing hydrogen injection for Cases 1, 2 and
3. The specific bosh gas flow rate per tonne of hot metal
produced, is also shown.
It is seen in Fig. 5 that while the production rate increases
when the ‘thermal state’ of the furnace is maintained i.e.
Fig. 4. Hot blast conditions with increasing hydrogen injection.
(Online version in color.)
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
Fig. 5. Bosh gas conditions with increasing hydrogen injection.
(Online version in color.)
during constant RAFT, up to ~3 kg-H2/t-HM, the produc-
tion rate decreases in Case 2, when the bosh gas flow rate
is maintained but the RAFT decreases. This relationship is
demonstrated by the specific bosh gas flow rate, which is
seen to increase in a similar way for all cases. The increase
in HM production when RAFT is maintained is described
by Tang, et al. (2021) as being primarily due to the oxygen
enrichment increasing (Fig. 4) the consumption of coke and
accelerating the burden descent (and production rate) of
the furnace. Thus, when the RAFT is no longer maintained
by oxygen enrichment, it is seen that the production rate
decreases due to the increase in specific bosh gas consump-
tion. This relationship implies that for furnaces operating
closer to thermal limits in the top gas (and are thus limited
in their use of oxygen enrichment), it may be more difficult
to maintain a constant production rate when injecting hydro-
gen as bosh gas rate increases. However, it is worth noting
that the impact of this increase in bosh gas volume will be
at least partially offset by decreased gas density and viscos-
ity. As well as this, the effect of hydrogen on the softening
and melting behaviour of burden is expected to improve the
cohesive zone characteristics.28,30) With the cohesive zone
being the primary bottleneck for gas flow, a higher bosh
gas flow rate may be feasible under hydrogen enrichment.
A consequence of the decreased gas flow at constant
RAFT in Cases 1 and 3 is that the top gas temperature
decreases more significantly than in Case 2, where the gas
flow rate is held constant. This effect is also demonstrated in
Fig. 3, where the minimum top gas temperature is reached
at 2.68 kg-H2/t-HM for Cases 1 and 3, and 2.9 kg-H2/t-HM
for Case 2.
While the total bosh gas consumption for Case 3 was
lower than Cases 1 and 2, it was seen that the combined spe-
cific consumption of CO and H2 in the bosh gas was slightly
higher in Case 3. As well as this, all hydrogen injection
cases had higher concentrations of total reducing gas (CO +
H2) in the bosh gas. With the increased reducing agent, the
Degree of Direct Reduction (DDR) was seen to decrease by
~25% from 0.30 to ~0.22. This decrease in direct reduction
decreases the heat requirement of the bosh, facilitating the
lower RAFT. The composition and total specific flow rate
of the bosh gas at the maximum hydrogen injection of each
© 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
Fig. 6. Specific bosh gas conditions leaving the raceway and
degree of direct reduction for all cases at maximum hydro-
gen injection. (Online version in color.)
case is shown in Fig. 6.
3.4. Top Gas Conditions
The top gas composition is a product of multiple reac-
tions occurring throughout the furnace between the rising
gas and descending solids. Alongside the carbon solution
loss reaction (Eq. (1)), the WGSR (Eq. (2)) and water-gas
reaction (Eq. (3)) will become relatively more significant in
determining the balance of hydrogen and carbon utilisation
as the hydrogen content of the bosh increases.
Ccoke + CO2 → 2CO ........................... (1)
H 2O + CO  H 2 + CO2 ........................ (2)
H 2O + Ccoke → H 2 + CO ....................... (3)
The occurrence of these reactions introduces significant
complexity to the determination of the top gas composi-
tion,12) as especially the WGSR can be catalysed by some
iron phases, such as magnetite, and not others.21) The
primary effect of the WGSR is to swap oxygen between
hydrogenous and carbonaceous components of the gas,
such that if the reaction proceeds to increase the utilisation
of carbon, it will decrease the utilisation of hydrogen and
vice versa.
In experimental blast furnace studies, injection of hydrog-
enous gas into the tuyeres of the blast furnace has been
observed to have conflicting effects on the relationship
between carbon and hydrogen utilisation. Watakabe, et al.
(2013) found that tuyere injection of 100 Nm3/t-HM Coke
Ovens Gas (COG, containing 57 vol% H2, 31 vol% CH4
and 12 vol% N2) decreased ηCO from 0.422 to 0.407 and
increased ηH2 from 0.382 to 0.422. In laboratory studies,
Higuchi, et al. (2020) simulated injection of 300 Nm3/t-
HM reformed COG (containing 60 vol% H2, 30 vol% CO
and 10 vol% N2) and also observed a decrease in ηCO from
0.472 to 0.458 and an increase in ηH2 from 0.345 to 0.386.
However, Nakano, et al. (2018) observed an increase in ηCO
when injecting COG through the tuyeres of an experimen-
tal blast furnace. From these limited results, the effect of
high hydrogen enrichment on the relationship between ηH2
and ηCO in an operating blast furnace is still unconfirmed.
Because of this, the relationship calibrated to the operating
Base Case blast furnace was assumed to remain valid, such
6
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
that ηH2 = 1.006·ηCO.
The specific flow rate of each top gas component for the
maximum hydrogen injection of all cases is shown in Fig.
7. The calculated value of ηCO (eta-CO) is also shown. It
should be noted that the water content of the top gas is
inclusive of water evaporated from charged burdens.
From Fig. 7, it is seen that ηCO (and thus ηH2) decreases
for Cases 1, 2 and 3. While the hydrogen concentration of
the rising gas is higher (see Fig. 6), the amount of oxygen
to be removed from the descending burden is the same. In
addition, Figs. 6 and 7 both show an increase in the total H2
+ C components of the gas. Thus, with the total increase in
reducing gas, the utilisation of both components decreases.
Despite this, as reduction by hydrogen increases in Cases
1, 2 and 3, the carbon (monoxide) concentration of the
rising gas decreases when compared to the Base Case (see
Fig. 6) resulting in a similar decrease in the specific emis-
sions of CO2 in the top gas of approximately 14% (from
336 Nm3-CO2/t-HM to ~290 Nm3-CO2/t-HM). While the
direct CO2 emissions from the blast furnace decrease, the
CO contained in the top gas is likely to eventually become
CO2 and should thus be considered in the emissions. From
the Base Case to Cases 1, 2, and 3, the total resulting emis-
sion decrease (CO + CO2) is thus from 693 Nm3/t-HM to
~636 Nm3/t-HM, or 8%. This is a total emission reduction
of 110 kg-CO2,eq/t-HM.
3.5. Fuel Replacement Trends with Hydrogen
Coke replacement has been the primary focus of many
previous studies assessing hydrogen injection. With the
vast majority of global blast furnaces operating with PCI,31)
it is of interest to understand how hydrogen can be used to
replace PCI. As well as this, the replacement of PCI instead
of coke reduces the potential impact of hydrogen injection
on an integrated steel works, where the coke production
rate is varied to match the blast furnace consumption, as the
COG used for auxiliary heating and power generation will
largely remain unchanged. Besides this, the replacement of
solid injectant with gas has significant potential advantages,
such as decreased ash loads and char generation from the
solid-gas reaction (combustion).11) In order to express fuel
replacement trends with hydrogen injection the Replace-
Fig. 7. Top gas conditions for Base Case and all cases at maxi-
mum hydrogen injection. (Online version in color.)
7 © 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
ment Ratio (R) is used, shown in Eq. (4).
mFuel , Base − mFuel
R= .......................... (4)
mH 2
mFuel,Base represents the specific mass rate of the fuel being
replaced (in this study, PCI or coke) in the Base Case, mFuel
represents the specific mass rate of fuel being replaced in
each hydrogen injection case, and mH2 represents the spe-
cific mass rate of hydrogen injected. It should be noted that
R reflects the decrease in solid fuel rate from all operational
modifications. Because of this, particular attention has been
paid in this study to maintain consistency in all possible
operating parameters to assess the impact of only the injec-
tion of hydrogen.
Shown in Fig. 8 is the replacement ratio of PCI (Cases 1
and 2) and coke (Case 3). As well as the replacement ratio
of each fuel, the replacement of the carbon content only of
each fuel is also shown via dotted lines. The replacement
ratio of carbon is calculated as RC = RFuel·wC,Fuel, where
wC,Fuel denotes the mass fraction of carbon in the fuel being
replaced.
From Fig. 8, the replacement ratio of PCI is seen to be
higher than that of coke. The carbon only component of
each fuel also demonstrates a lower replacement ratio when
replacing coke with hydrogen compared to PCI. At the
maximum hydrogen injection, the replacement ratio of PCI
is seen to be ~1.9 kg-PCI/kg-H2 (Cases 1 and 2), while the
replacement ratio of coke is seen to be 1.64 kg-coke/kg-H2
(Case 3). From this relationship, it can be inferred that the
replacement ratio of coke with PCI under these conditions
is ~0.86 kg-coke/kg-PCI. This value is consistent with that
expected for the PCI quality,31,32) indicating that the primary
differences in replacement of coke and PCI with hydrogen
are related to the replacement of coke with PCI.
The replacement ratio at the lowest calculated hydrogen
injection of ~2.7 kg-H2/t-HM is seen to be lower than at
higher hydrogen injection rates. As seen in Fig. 3, this
injection rate corresponds to the change in constraints, up
to which the RAFT was maintained. In order to maintain
the RAFT, the oxygen enrichment increases more signifi-
cantly compared to higher injection rates where the RAFT
is allowed to decrease, as seen in Fig. 4. This higher oxygen
enrichment reflects the additional energy required to main-
Fig. 8. Replacement ratio trends with increasing hydrogen injec-
tion. (Online version in color.)
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
tain the thermal state of the RAFT. This energy requirement
increases the amount of fuel required, thus decreasing the
initial replacement ratio. It is worth noting that as the fol-
lowing replacement ratios reflect all changes to the process,
this initial increase in fuel requirement impacts all replace-
ment ratios, producing the monotonically increasing curve
seen in Fig. 8.
From Fig. 8, the replacement of PCI with hydrogen is seen
to be more effective on a pure carbon basis than replacement
of coke based on the assumed qualities of PC and coke.
At the maximum injection rates, Cases 1 and 2 (PCI is
replaced) achieve a replacement ratio of 1.54 kg-C/kg-H2
and 1.56 kg-C/kg-H2 respectively, whereas the replacement
ratio of Case 3 is ~9% lower at 1.41 kg-C/kg-H2. From this,
alongside having less impact on blast furnace permeability
and potentially the integrated steelworks energy balance,
replacement of PCI is seen to be more favourable from a
pure carbon replacement perspective.
In comparison with previous studies that replaced coke,
the replacement ratio of 1.64 kg-coke/kg-H2 determined
for Case 3 falls between that of Castro, et al. (2017) and
Spanlang, et al. (2020) (1.3–3 kg-coke/kg-H2).
3.6. Effect of Steam Control on Fuel Replacement
Steam injection is typically used for rapid thermal control
of the raceway and has a significant effect on the fuel rate.
In this study, the production rate is maintained constant with
hydrogen injection for all cases except Case 2, with steam
injection fixed on a daily rate and hence proportional to the
hot metal production. As Case 2 has a variable production
rate, the specific steam injection rate will vary if the daily
steam injection is maintained constant. As previously dis-
cussed, to maintain comparability between the cases, steam
injection was fixed proportional to the hot metal production
in Case 2. However, with steam injection also serving other
purposes, decreasing the daily rate of steam may not be
practical. For this reason, the sensitivity of the replacement
ratio to the way in which steam is varied was assessed. In
addition to fixing the steam rate proportional to the hot
metal production, the replacement ratio was assessed when
the steam rate was constrained proportional to the hot blast
rate as well as on a fixed daily rate. Figure 9 shows the
PCI replacement ratio of Case 2 with various methods of
steam control.
Fig. 9. PCI replacement ratio of Case 2 with various steam injec-
tion methods. (Online version in color.)
© 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
From Fig. 9, it is clear that the steam control has a signifi-
cant effect on the produced replacement ratio ‘trend’. When
steam is blast proportional, the replacement ratio is between
2–7.4% higher than other steam control methods. As noted
previously in Fig. 5, the production rate is initially seen to
increase before decreasing as the hydrogen injection rate
increases above ~2.7 kg-H2/t-HM. Thus, when the steam
rate is maintained constant on a daily rate, the specific steam
rate follows the same trend as the production rate. With the
initial increase in production rate, the specific steam injec-
tion is decreased and as such, the initial replacement ratio
is higher. Conversely, with further hydrogen injection the
production rate decreases, and thus the specific steam rate
increases. This leads to the lower replacement ratio when
compared to a constant specific steam rate seen in Fig. 9.
From Fig. 4, the total blast rate is initially seen to
decrease before increasing above ~2.7 kg-H2/t-HM. With
the steam rate decreasing in proportion to the blast air, the
energy requirement to maintain the RAFT is decreased
significantly, and thus the replacement ratio increases. This
initial increase in the replacement affects further hydrogen
injection rates, reducing the upward trend of the replace-
ment ratio seen in the daily and hot metal proportional steam
constraints. In addition to the steam rate decreasing in pro-
portion to the blast air, the production rate also decreases as
discussed above. This compounds the effect on the specific
steam injection rate, leading to the higher replacement ratio
seen in Fig. 9.
3.7. Sensitivity to Stack Reduction Efficiency
Stack Reduction Efficiency (SRE) is a term used to
describe the extent to which the gas and solid phases reach
equilibrium in the chemical reserve zone of the furnace,
defining the composition of both phases. As discussed, in
Cases 1–3, the SRE was maintained at a constant value cali-
brated to an operating blast furnace (SRE = 0.91). While the
effect of hydrogen on the SRE is not yet well-characterised,
compared with carbon monoxide, hydrogen reduction has
superior kinetics and equilibrium driving force at high
temperatures.7) These characteristics are likely to improve
the ability of the gas to reach equilibrium with solids in the
chemical reserve zone, and thus increase the SRE. The few
available experimental studies have also indicated that the
utilisation of hydrogen is likely to increase.26–28) To assess
the upper limits of this increase, the hydrogen injection limit
was re-assessed with SRE = 1 in Case 4. A SRE of 1 is a
hypothetical and unobtainable upper limit, used for model-
ling purposes only. This analysis was performed under the
same constraints as Case 1, with the maximum hydrogen
injection re-calculated with the modified SRE.
As seen in Table 3, the maximum hydrogen injection for
Case 4 was determined to be 14.3 kg-H2/t-HM, significantly
lower than cases in which the SRE was maintained constant.
The hydrogen was also seen to replace ~64 kg-PCI/t-HM,
corresponding to a replacement ratio of 4.5 kg-PCI/kg-H2.
This replacement ratio was higher than Case 1, as the effect
of simultaneously adding hydrogen and increasing the SRE
is compounded. Hence, depending on the occurrence and
extent of an increased hydrogen concentration increasing the
SRE, the real replacement ratio could be as high as 4.5 kg-
PCI/kg-H2, similar to the high replacement ratios observed
8
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
by Yilmaz, et al. (2017).
The Rist diagram is a useful graphical tool to visualise
the operating conditions in the blast furnace.33,34) Shown in
Fig. 10 is a comparison of the Rist diagrams for the Base
Case and Cases 1 and 4.
When comparing Case 1 to the Base Case in Fig. 10, the
assumption of a fixed SRE is demonstrated by the pivoting
of the operating line around point R. From this pivot, with
the increase in hydrogen and oxygen in the blast, point E is
seen to move downwards, and point A left, representing the
decrease in the top gas utilisation seen in Fig. 7.
The operating line for Case 4 is seen to pass through
point W, representing the assumption that SRE = 1. When
compared to Case 1, the resulting operating line in Case 4
represents the compound movement of injecting hydrogen
(seen in Case 1) and increasing the SRE to 1. With Point R
approaching Point W as SRE increases, the slope of the line
is seen to decrease. It should be noted that the movement
of the W point is extremely small, as the determination of
the equilibrium composition at 850°C is close to the point
where H2 and CO have similar theoretical utilisations. The
increased SRE essentially allows the gas to achieve a higher
utilisation through the chemical reserve zone. This decreases
the amount of CO and H2 required to remove oxygen from
the burden, and thus also increases the utilisation in the
top gas. With the utilisation of gas increased, the amount
of solution loss occurring is decreased which results in a
lower top gas volume. Overall, the total specific CO2,eq
emissions are seen to decrease by ~14%, offsetting 190 kg-
CO2,eq/t-HM. It should be noted that while the specific
emissions of Case 4 are higher than that of Cases 1, 2 and
3, the efficiency of the process has increased, meaning that
less hydrogen and unutilised carbon leave through the top
gas. This is beneficial as green hydrogen is likely to be a
valuable commodity for some time.
Fig. 10. Comparison of Base Case with Cases 1 and 4, using the
Rist diagram. (Online version in color.)
9 © 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
When comparing Case 4 to Case 1 in Fig. 10, the
decreased slope of the operating line corresponds to a lower
total C + H2 requirement. Because of this, the CO + H2
requirement of the bosh gas is also lower, as seen in Fig. 6.
A result of the decreased gas requirement is that the effect
of adding hydrogen on the RAFT is amplified: Both the
sensible heat effect of hydrogen and the reduced energy
from CO generation decrease the RAFT under hydrogen
injection. This restricts the maximum injection rate through
the constrained RAFT decrease, but also increases the
achievable replacement ratio.
Case 4 indicates that if hydrogen has the effect of increas-
ing the SRE, its impact on blast furnace efficiency can
be drastically improved. The compounding effect of the
increase in SRE and hydrogen utilisation results in a higher
replacement ratio and lower injection limit. The extent to
which hydrogen increases the SRE in a real blast furnace is
yet to be determined. With in-furnace hydrogen behaviour
(such as the relationship between ηH2 and ηCO, and extent
of WGSR) and its influence on the SRE, the real impact
of hydrogen will fall somewhere between the two results
(between 8–14% reduction in CO2,eq).
4. Conclusion
A comprehensive two-stage heat and mass balance model
calibrated to an operating blast furnace (a Base Case) was
used to assess operational limits to hydrogen injection in the
blast furnace. Various scenarios were simulated to provide
operational comparisons with different model constraints
associated with production rate-bosh gas rate and coke-PCI
replacement. As well as these constraints, the sensitivity of
the model to an increase in the stack reduction efficiency
with injection of hydrogen in the blast furnace was assessed.
Relative to the Base Case operation, it was noted that:
(a)  Hydrogen injection is primarily limited by a
decrease in the top gas temperature (minimum 118°C) and
RAFT (minimum 2 050°C).
(b)  When the RAFT is allowed to decrease, the specific
bosh gas consumption is increased. Thus, under constant
bosh gas flow rate a productivity decrease is observed.
Because of this, it is necessary to accommodate a higher
bosh gas rate to maintain a constant production rate.
(c)  Under constant stack reduction efficiency, the
maximum hydrogen injection rate was determined to be
19.5 kg-H2/t-HM, replacing 37.2 kg-PCI/t-HM (replace-
ment ratio of 1.9 kg-PCI/kg-H2) or 19 kg-H2/t-HM replacing
31 kg-coke/t-HM (replacement ratio of 1.64 kg-coke/kg-H2).
(d)  The replacement ratio of PCI with hydrogen was
seen to be higher than that of coke by 9% on a pure carbon
basis.
(e)  Where it was assumed that the addition of hydrogen
increases the stack reduction efficiency to 1.0, the maximum
hydrogen injection rate was decreased to 14.3 kg-H2/t-HM.
However, since the hydrogen utilisation is increased (less
hydrogen leaves through the top gas), the replacement ratio
could be as high as 4.5 kg-PCI/kg-H2.
(f)  Injection of hydrogen was determined to reduce
direct blast furnace CO2,eq emissions by ~8% if the SRE
remains constant, and up to 14% if the SRE increases to its
hypothetical upper limit of 1.
 ISIJ International, Advance Publication by J-STAGE
ISIJ International,
ISIJ International,
AdvanceVol.Publication
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge industrial partner
BHP for their financial support and permission to publish
this paper. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the
valuable discussions and input from BlueScope Steel.
REFERENCES
1) J. Zhao, H. Zuo, Y. Wang, J. Wang and Q. Xue: Ironmaking Steel-
making, 47 (2020), 296. https://doi.org/10.1080/03019233.2019.163
9029
2) Y. Chen and H. Zuo: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 48 (2021), 749.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03019233.2021.1909992
3) Y. Liu, Z. Hu and Y. Shen: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 52 (2021), 2971.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-021-02156-z
4) Y. Zhuo, Z. Hu and Y. Shen: Fuel, 302 (2021), 120804. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120804
5) M. Sato, K. Takahashi, T. Nouchi and T. Ariyama: ISIJ Int., 55
(2015), 2105. https://10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2015-264
6) A. Babich: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 48 (2021), 728. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03019233.2021.1900037
7) D. Spreitzer and J. Schenk: Steel Res. Int., 90 (2019), 1900108.
https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201900108
8) thyssenkrupp: Injection of hydrogen into blast furnace: thyssen-
krupp Steel concludes first test phase successfully, https://www.
thyssenkrupp-steel.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/thyssenkrupp-
steel-concludes-first-test-phase-successfully.html, (accessed 2021-
11-23).
9) C. Yilmaz, J. Wendelstorf and T. Turek: J. Clean. Prod., 154 (2017),
488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.162
10) J. Tang, M. Chu, F. Li, Z. Zhang, Y. Tang, Z. Liu and J. Yagi:
J. Clean. Prod., 278 (2021), 123191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123191
11) M. Geerdes: Iron Steel Technol., 13 (2016), 82.
12) H. Nogami, Y. Kashiwaya and D. Yamada: ISIJ Int., 52 (2012), 1523.
https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.52.1523
13) H. M. Long, H. Wang, W. Zhao, J. X. Li, Z. Liu and P. Wang: Iron-
making Steelmaking, 43 (2016), 450. https://doi.org/10.1080/030192
33.2015.1108480
14) J. A. de Castro, C. Takano and J.-i. Yagi: J. Mater. Res. Technol., 6
(2017), 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.05.007
15) H. Wang, M. Chu, C. Bi, Z. Liu and W. Dai: 8th Int. Symp. on High-
Temperature Metallurgical Processing, Springer, Cham, (2017), 21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51340-9_3
© 2022 ISIJ
62 (2022), No.
by J-Stage
6
16) J. Tang, M. Chu, F. Li, C. Feng, Z.-g. Liu and Y.-s. Zhou: Int.
J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 27 (2020), 713. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12613-020-2021-4
17) A. Spanlang, W. Wukovits and B. Weiss: BHM Berg- Hüttenmänn.
Monatsh., 165 (2020), 243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-020-00963-6
18) J. Mathieson, H. Rogers, M. Somerville, P. Ridgeway and S.
Jahanshahi: Proc. METEC InSteelCon 2011 Conf., Steel Institute
VDEh, Düsseldorf, (2011), 1.
19) P. B. Abhale, N. N. Viswanathan and H. Saxén: Miner. Process. Extr.
Metall., 129 (2020), 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/25726641.2020.173
3357
20) J. G. Peacey and W. G. Davenport: The Iron Blast Furnace, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, UK, (1979), 1.
21) A. Kemppainen, T. Alatarvas, M. Iljana, J. Haapakangas, O. Mattila,
T. Paananen and T. Fabritius: ISIJ Int., 54 (2014), 801. https://doi.
org/10.2355/isijinternational.54.801
22) K. Jacob and S. Seetharaman: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 25 (1994),
149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02663188
23) S. Gupta, Z. Ye, R. Kanniala, O. Kerkkonen and V. Sahajwalla: Fuel,
113 (2013), 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.05.074
24) M. Geerdes, R. Chaigneau, I. Kurunov, O. Lingiardi and J. Ricketts:
Modern Blast Furnace Ironmaking, An Introduction, IOS Press,
Amsterdam, (2015), 1.
25) M. Jampani, J. Gibson and P. C. Pistorius: Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
50 (2019), 1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-019-01538-8
26) S. Watakabe, K. Miyagawa, S. Matsuzaki, T. Inada, Y. Tomita, K.
Saito, M. Osame, P. Sikström, L. S. Ökvist and J.-O. Wikstrom: ISIJ
Int., 53 (2013), 2065. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.53.2065
27) K. Nakano, Y. Ujisawa, K. Kakiuchi, K. Nishioka, K. Sunahara, Y.
Matsukura, H. Yokoyama, H. Sakai and R. Sugitani: 8th Int. Cong.
on Science and Technology of Ironmaking (ICSTI 2018), (Vienna),
ASMET, Leoben, (2018), 889.
28) K. Higuchi, S. Matsuzaki, K. Saito and S. Nomura: ISIJ Int., 60 (2020),
2218. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2020-063
29) S. Dutta and Y. Chokshi: Basic Concepts of Iron and Steel Making,
Springer Nature, Singapore, (2020), 1.
30) Y. Qie, Q. Lyu, C.-c. Lan, S.-h. Zhang and R. Liu: J. Iron Steel Res.
Int., 27 (2020), 132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42243-019-00303-0
31) S. Dutta and Y. Chokshi: Basic Concepts of Iron and Steel Making,
Springer Nature, Singapore, (2020), 89.
32) P. Bennett and T. Fukushima: 12th Int. Conf. on Coal Science
(ICCS), Cairns, Australian Insitute of Energy, Perth, (2003), 1.
33) A. Rist and N. Meysson: J. Met., 19 (1967), 50. https://doi.org/​
10.1007/BF03378564
34) D. M. Kundrat, T. Miwa and A. Rist: Metall. Trans. B, 22 (1991),
363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02651235
10