12th International Exergy, Energy and Environment Symposium (IEEES-12), March 22-26, 2020, Doha, Qatar

Exergy and CO2 emissions analysis of an emerging alternative iron and steel making
process

1* Binay Kumar, 2 Gour Gopal Roy, 3 Prodip Kumar Sen

1 IITKharagpur, Research Scholar, Department of Metallurgical & Materials Engg., Kharagpur, 721302, India
2,3 IIT Kharagpur, Professor, Department of Metallurgical & Materials Engg., Kharagpur, 721302, India

*E-mail: binay.kumar@iitkgp.ac.in

Abstract
Depletion of coking coal reserves, generation of ore/coal fines and growing environmental concerns motivated
researchers to search for coke-free ironmaking processes using ore/coal fines leading to alternative routes of
ironmaking. In this way, several alternative routes of ironmaking have evolved. Rotary hearth furnace (RHF)
processes are the emerging alternative routes of ironmaking since it is reported that these processes consume
lower energy with lesser CO2 emissions compared to conventional ironmaking process but resource-based energy
utilization efficiency has not been reported. Thus, there is a need for exergy analysis beyond emission/energy
profiles. The final product of the RHF processes could be either directly reduce iron (DRI) or nugget depending on
the process parameters and those are further smelted in electric arc furnace (EAF) to produce steel. Model-based
exergy and CO2 emissions analysis of both variants of RHF-EAF iron and steel making processes are studied. All
the thermodynamic data used has been estimated with the help of thermodynamic software FactSage. In the
present study, three kinds of exergy indices are measured: total exergy loss, metal-based exergy efficiency and
metal+gas-based exergy efficiency based on input exergy. For the nugget based RHF-EAF process, these exergy
indices are found as 7992 MJ/tcs, 33% and 67%, respectively; whereas for the DRI based RHF-EAF process, those
values are calculated as 9585 MJ/tcs, 31% and 61%, respectively. Results indicate that nugget based RHF-EAF
process is superior to DRI based RHF-EAF process. However, exergy indices of RHF-EAF systems are either
superior or comparable (depending on RHF product) to conventional iron and steel making process. In order to
calculate the CO2 emissions from the RHF-EAF processes, carbon flows in RHF and EAF; and electricity demand
in EAF are investigated. Net total CO2 emissions through both the RHF-EAF processes are estimated to around
1.92-2.01 ton/tcs which is comparable to conventional iron and steel making process.

Keywords: Iron and steel making, exergy analysis, exergy loss, exergy efficiency, CO2 emissions

I. Introduction
Steel is the world’s most popular construction material due to its durability, processability, and cost. However,
producing steel from iron ore creates high energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. Presently, around 70% of world
steel is produced through the conventional (BF-BOF) iron and steelmaking route (World Steel Association, 2018),
which requires metallurgical coke. Coking coal reserves are decreasing day by day, and also generation of mines
byproducts like iron oxide fines and coal fines motivated researchers to search for coke free iron making processes
using mines useful byproducts leading to alternative routes of iron and steel making. Rotary hearth furnace-electric
arc furnace (RHF-EAF) processes are one of the emerging alternative routes of iron and steel making. Ironmaking
using RHF processes like Fastmet, Fastmelt, and ITmk3 has drawn attention of the researchers for the last couple
of decades since these processes are coal-based direct reduction process that uses iron ore fines and non-coking
coal fines in the form of composite pellets. RHF is a doughnut-shaped moving bed reactor where composite pellets
are charged from entry door placed next to the exit door through which DRI or nugget (depending on the operating
parameters) is discharged after moving through 360o through the tunnel encompassing various temperature regime,
namely preheating, reduction and cooling zone, and those are further melted in either electric arc furnace (EAF) or
induction furnace (EIF) to produce steel. Due to heat transfer restrictions in RHF, RHF based processes involve
operation on one or two layers only over the hearth, puts limitation on productivity. Figure 1 represents the typical
process flow in an RHF-EAF steelmaking system. It is claimed that in RHF-EAF steelmaking processes, the intimacy
of iron ore fines and non-coking coal fines (reductant) improves the mass transfer efficacy and efficient carbon
utilization in RHF results in lower energy requirements with lesser CO 2 emissions compared to conventional iron
and steel making process (Fujita and Harada, 2010).
Since exergy analyses are widely used in evaluation and optimizations of chemical and metallurgical
processes and global climate change caused by CO2 has become a hot issue worldwide, several studies have been
reported on the exergy and CO2 emissions analyses of the conventional iron and steel making process; however,
reports on exergy and CO2 emissions analyses of RHF-EAF steelmaking processes are limited. The present article
focuses on the exergy and CO2 emissions analyses of RHF-EAF steelmaking processes. The detailed exergy
calculation methodology of the metallurgical streams could be found elsewhere (Kadrolkar et al., 2012). To estimate
total CO2 emissions from the RHF-EAF processes, carbon flows in RHF and EAF; and carbon equivalent of
calculated electricity demand in EAF are analysed. Comparison of exergy indices and CO2 emission values of RHF-
EAF steelmaking systems with conventional iron and steel making process are also presented.

1
 12th International Exergy, Energy and Environment Symposium (IEEES-12), March 22-26, 2020, Doha, Qatar

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of process flow in an RHF-EAF steelmaking system

A. Exergy indices
Figure 2 represents a typical exergy flow in any industrial system. Internal exergy loss (B int loss) in complex
metallurgical processes are occurred mainly due to combustion reactions, chemical reactions and heat transfer. It
may be noted that Bint loss is specific to a process chosen and therefore characterized as process system exergy
loss. Total exergy loss (Btotal loss) is the summation of internal exergy losses and external exergy losses. External
exergy losses contribute exergy of lost material, exergy of waste products, exergy loss due to radiation and
convection, and thermal exergy losses. External loss is the exergy of all flows that cross the boundaries of the
process and have no commercial value. Crude steel (CS), RHF gas and EAF gas are considered as useful products,
whereas waste products are EAF slag, RHF gangue and EAF fume.

Fig. 2: Schematic representation of exergy flow in a system

In the present study, following exergy indices are measured: internal exergy loss, total exergy loss, metal-
based exergy efficiency (when only metal is the useful product) and metal+gas-based exergy efficiency (when metal,
as well as gas both, are the valuable product).

Internal/System exergy loss (Bint loss) is estimated by Bint loss = Btotal input  Btotal output (1)
Total exergy loss (Btotal loss) is evaluated by Btotal loss = Btotal input  Buseful products (2)
Bmetal
Metal-based exergy efficiency (m) is calculated by ψm = (3)
Btotal input
Bmetal + Bgas
Metal + Gas-based exergy efficiency (m-g) is expressed by ψm-g = (4)
Btotal input
Where Btotal input is the total input exergy, Btotal output is the total output exergy, and Buseful products is the summation of
exergies of all useful products coming out from the system. Bmetal is the exergy of DRI/nugget for RHF and exergy
of crude steel for EAF, and Bgas is the exergy of useful gases coming out from the respective processes.

II. Exergy analysis of RHF-EAF steelmaking process

For analyzing the exergy flow of RHF processes, knowledge of input and output mass streams from RHF in
necessary. These input and output mass streams data can be either taken from reported actual plant data or
developed from a thermodynamic model. Actual plant data are limited reported in literature and only a few work has
been reported on thermodynamic modelling of RHF for arriving at mass and energy requirements of RHF process.
Therefore, a thermodynamic model for RHF process is developed and validated with data available in the literature
(Kumar et al., 2017). The model is capable of estimating input and output mass streams like iron ore rate, reductant
coal rate, external fuel rate, exit gas temperature and composition based on the given composition and operating
parameters. For exergy analysis of EAF process, a separate model has been developed based on mass and heat
balance. Later both models are coupled together, and exergy flows of combined RHF-EAF iron and steelmaking
process are studied. Figure 3 represents the exergy flow in DRI-based and nugget-based RHF-EAF steelmaking
systems. System exergy loss in RHF and electricity demand in EAF are higher for DRI-based RHF-EAF steelmaking
system since higher amount of DRI is required to melt to produce 1-ton CS than amount of nugget needed in nugget-
2
 12th International Exergy, Energy and Environment Symposium (IEEES-12), March 22-26, 2020, Doha, Qatar

based RHF-EAF process. For the nugget-based RHF-EAF process, total exergy indices, m and m-g are found as
7992 MJ/tcs, 33% and 66%, respectively; whereas for the DRI-based RHF-EAF process, those values are
calculated as 9585 MJ/tcs, 31% and 61%, respectively. Here total exergy loss composed of system exergy losses,
external exergy losses and exergy consumed in power generation. Results indicate that nugget-based RHF-EAF
process is superior to DRI-based RHF-EAF steelmaking process.

Fig. 3: Schematic representation of exergy flow in RHF-EAF steelmaking systems (per ton crude steel)
(a) Nugget-based, and (b) DRI-based

III. Comparison of exergy indices of RHF-EAF systems with BF-BOF process

Comparison of exergy indices between RHF-EAF processes and reported conventional iron and steelmaking
process (BF-BOF process) can reveal characteristics and sustainability of the RHF-EAF system. Total exergy losses,
metal-based exergy efficiency (m) and metal+gas-based exergy efficiency (m-g) of BF-BOF process taken from
literature and RHF-EAF processes studied are shown in Table 1.
Exergy indices indicate that nugget-based RHF-EAF steelmaking process is superior to DRI-based RHF-
EAF steelmaking process as well as BF-BOF process. However, exergy efficiencies of integrated BF-BOF process
are comparable to DRI-based RHF-EAF steelmaking processes. Even though high exergy components like natural
gas (NG) and electricity are used in RHF-EAF systems, exergy indices are either superior or comparable to
integrated BF-BOF systems since former systems are two-step steelmaking units whereas integrated BF-BOF
systems are four-step iron and steelmaking processes. Controlled hot charging of DRI and nugget, and scrap
addition in EAF may further improve exergy indices of RHF-EAF systems.

Table 1. Comparison of total exergy losses in integrated steelmaking systems with previous studies.
(Michaelis et al., (Costa et al., (Zhang et al., Present study
1998) 2001) 2018)
Processes BF-BOF route BF-BOF route BF-BOF route Nugget-based DRI-based RHF-
RHF-EAF route EAF route
Pellet plant 0.23
Total exergy loss (GJ)*

Sinter plant 1.51 2.20 1.88

Coke oven 2.17 2.64 1.79
Hot stove
BF 3.87 3.43 4.10
BOF/EAF 1.41 1.41 1.27 2.05 2.10
Power plant 2.47 4.10
RHF 3.47 3.39
Total 8.96 9.91 9.04 7.99 9.59
 (%)*
m
30.00 33.51 33.23 31.39

m-g(%)* 48.00 63.27 65.65 60.72

*Calculations are based on the results of these literatures and method in this study.

IV. CO2 emissions analysis of RHF-EAF steelmaking process

In order to estimate the net CO2 emissions from the RHF-EAF iron and steel making processes, net carbon flows
in both variants of RHF-EAF system are examined with material flow analysis, obtained through the model
developed. Figure 4 shows the carbon flow per ton crude steel in both variants of RHF-EAF Process. Results
indicate that the primary carbon sources of CO2 emissions in RHF are reductant coal and external fuel (NG), and
in EAF, main carbon sources of CO2 emissions is fuel required (India grid factor- 0.218 kg C/kWh (Central Electricity
Authority, 2018) ) for power generation. The net CO2 emissions have been estimated by converting net carbon input
(net carbon input = total carbon input – carbon in crude steel) into CO2 completely. Calculated net CO2 emissions
per ton crude steel from the DRI-based and nugget-based RHF-EAF iron and steel making processes are 1922.10
kg and 2014.28 kg, respectively.

3
 12th International Exergy, Energy and Environment Symposium (IEEES-12), March 22-26, 2020, Doha, Qatar

Fig. 4: Carbon flow per ton crude steel in RHF-EAF steelmaking process (a) Nugget-Based, and (b) DRI-based

The net CO2 emissions value from conventional iron and steel making process (BF-BOF route) is around
2000 kg per ton crude steel (Sahoo et al., 2019; Sarkar et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019). Therefore, net total CO2
emissions through both variants of RHF-EAF routes may be comparable to conventional iron and steel making
process (BF-BOF route).

V. Conclusions
1. For the nugget-based RHF-EAF process, total exergy loss, m and m-g are found as 7992 MJ/tcs, 33%
and 67%, respectively; whereas for the DRI-based RHF-EAF process, those values are calculated as 9585
MJ/tcs, 31% and 61%, respectively.
2. Exergy indices of nugget based RHF-EAF steelmaking process are superior to DRI based RHF-EAF
steelmaking system.
3. Exergy indices indicate that exergy efficiencies of RHF-EAF steelmaking systems are either superior or
comparable (depending on RHF product) to integrated BF-BOF steelmaking system.
4. Benefits of lesser units in RHF-EAF steelmaking systems (two units compared to four units in integrated
BF-BOF system) are nullified by use of high exergy components like NG and electricity, and thermal exergy
loss of DRI/nugget during transfer from RHF to EAF.
5. Net CO2 emissions from the DRI-based and nugget-based RHF-EAF iron and steel making processes are
calculated as around 1922 kg and 2014 kg /tcs, respectively which are comparable to conventional iron and
steel making process.

References
Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W., Masini, A., 2006. Sustainable Metals Management, Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science. Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4539-5
Beer, J. de, 2000. Potential for Industrial Energy-Efficiency Improvement in the Long Term, 2000th ed, Eco-Efficiency in Industry
and Science. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2728-0
Central Electricity Authority, 2018. CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector. Minist. of Power, Government India.
Costa, M.M., Schaeffer, R., Worrell, E., 2001. Exergy accounting of energy and materials flows in steel production systems.
Energy 26, 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-5442(01)00004-4
Fujita K, Harada T, M.S. and T.H., 2010. CO2 Emission Comparison between Coal-based Direct Reduction Process and
Conventional Blast Furnace Process, in: Int. Symposium on Ironmaking for Sustainable Development. Osaka, Japan.
Kadrolkar, A., Roy, S.K., Sen, P.K., 2012. Minimization of exergy losses in the COREX process. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 43, 173–
185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-011-9586-2
Kumar, B., Mishra, S., Roy, G.G., Sen, P.K., 2017. Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Rotary Hearth Furnace Using a
Thermodynamic Model. Steel Res. Int. 88. https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201600265
Michaelis, P., Jackson, T., Clift, R., 1998. Exergy analysis of the life cycle of steel. Energy 23, 213–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(97)00081-9
Sahoo, M., Sarkar, S., Das, A.C.R., Roy, G.G., Sen, P.K., 2019. Role of Scrap Recycling for CO 2 Emission Reduction in Steel
Plant: A Model Based Approach. Steel Res. Int. https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201900034
Sarkar, S., Bhattacharya, R., Roy, G.G., Sen, P.K., 2018. Modeling MIDREX Based Process Configurations for Energy and
Emission Analysis. Steel Res. Int. https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201700248
Song, J., Jiang, Z., Bao, C., Xu, A., 2019. Comparison of energy consumption and CO2 emission for three steel production
routes-integrated steel plant equipped with blast furnace, oxygen blast furnace or corex. Metals.
https://doi.org/10.3390/met9030364
World Steel Association, 2018, Fact Sheet, Steel Industry Co-Products, https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:1b916a6d-06fd-
4e84-b35d-c1d911d18df4/Fact _By-products_2018.pdf (accessed 17 June 2019)
Zhang, Q., Xu, J., Zhao, X., Wang, Y., 2018. Energy and exergy analyses of an integrated iron and steel making process. Int. J.
Exergy 26, 454. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijex.2018.10014412