See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298529992

Benchmark study of the EAF plants using KT injection system

Article · November 2005

CITATIONS READS

4 855

3 authors, including:

Francesco Memoli Cesare Giavani

Tenova Tenova
41 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesco Memoli on 07 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Benchmark Study of EAF
Plants Using the KT
Injection System
I n the last five years, the amount of oxygen
used in electric arc furnaces (EAFs) has
increased a great deal, especially for those
plants that do not require high-quality steel
grades, such as carbon steel as rebar and other
common grades. In some countries, the
increased use of oxygen — chemical energy
— depends on the cost of electrical energy,
New injection technologies have increased the efficiency
of thermal and chemical input into the EAF. A
benchmark study compares the performance data of
three plants using Techint’s multipoint oxygen and
carbon injection system with 40 other EAFs.
but in general this increase can be explained
by the development of new injection tech-
nologies, which have increased the efficiency
of thermal and chemical input into the EAF.
In addition, the multipoint injection of super-
sonic oxygen and powder carbon around the
EAF has created the possibility of automating
the melting and refining operations, so that
nowadays furnace operators can simply super-
vise the melting and refining processes. There
is no longer any risk of human errors — for
instance, overoxidation with manually operat-
ed lances.
The KT Injection System, a product of
Techint for multipoint oxygen and carbon
injection, has undergone development over
the last two years, with more than 20 projects
started up worldwide. It is now the chemical
package with the highest level of technology.
This article presents a benchmark study detail-
ing the performance of three plants produc-
ing carbon steel for long products where the
KT Injection System has been installed. These
three plants are compared with 40 other fur-
naces with the same kind of productivity. Also
Authors
Francesco Memoli, technology service manager, and Per Lückhoff, senior process engineer, Techint SpA, Italy
1 ✦ Iron & Steel Technology
considered are the production figures for liq-
uid steel for long products worldwide.
Background
A benchmark study for the steel industry is
always a difficult task. Comparing EAFs is
probably even more difficult, considering the
number of variables that can affect EAF oper-
ation. One approach to accomplishing this
kind of study is the standardization of some
parameters in order to make as equal a com-
parison as possible.
In this case, the study compares EAF plants
using the KT Injection System — the multi-
point oxygen and carbon injection system by
Techint — with other plants that are in the
same market section and have comparable
production facilities. This benchmark study
has been divided in two parts. The first part
compares EAF furnaces producing carbon
steel for long products. Approximately 40
plants have been taken into account, with EAF
heat size ranging from 20 to 160 metric tons.
The second part compares EAF furnaces
charging continuously from the roof more
than 40 percent of DRI and producing at least
400,000 tons/year. Ten plants have been
taken into account for this second part. All
plant data used in this benchmark study was
collected during 2002 and 2003.
This article is not meant to provide general
conclusions regarding average energy con-
sumption or average productivity for a typical
EAF. Nearly everyone in the steel industry,
and particularly in the EAF field, knows how
difficult it can be to determine absolutes for
the best energy consumption or productivity.
This is because so many direct factors (includ-
ing scrap type, furnace design and manpower)
as well as indirect factors (plant efficiency and
market conditions) influence liquid steel pro-
duction.
Apart from this general consideration, this
benchmark study can be used as am overview
of the different operational figures in many
 Figure 1

plants. For the sake of confidentiali-

ty, the names and locations of the
plants, other than the plants using
the KT Injection System, are not dis-
closed.
A KT oxygen lance is pictured in A KT oxygen lance, a product of Techint.
Figure 1, while the typical locations
of both lances and KT carbon injec-
tors are show in Figure 2. Figure 2

EAFs Producing Carbon Steel for

Long Products
Geographic Distribution — Forty furnaces
were considered for this benchmark study.
They are located in seven different countries
and produce an average of 500,000 metric
tons/year (total production is approximately
20 million of tons). The majority of these
plants produce carbon steel with no special
quality requirements, and all of them are in
the long products market. Figure 3 shows the
locations of the plants considered in this study.
There is no particular reason for this distri-
bution besides the availability of consistent sta-
tistics about the EAFs. This geographic distri-
bution does not reflect global carbon steel
production. In fact, fact China represents only
7 percent of this study, and some larger mar-
kets (i.e., Russia) are not included. Since the
European and North American continents
together represent 75 percent of the data con-
sidered, one could say that this study focuses
on these two continents, with some influence
coming from the rest of the world.

EAF Statistics — Table 1 summarizes the data

considered for the benchmark study. The fig-
ures have been selected as monthly averages
of consecutive months in 2002 or 2003; there-
fore, they can be considered as representative
of each one of the 40 plants studied. For each Typical locations of KT oxygen lances and KT
of the itemized figures, the table indicates the carbon injectors in an electric arc furnace.
minimum value registered, the maximum
value registered, the average value (calculated
by “weighing” each plant on the basis of its Figure 3
yearly production of liquid steel) and the
standard deviation of the 40 plants, just to give
a summary indication of the group of plants
considered and thus maintaining discretion.
It is important to note that the high value of
standard deviation is clear evidence that there
is not uniformity of performance for this kind
of steel production worldwide.
The average consumption figures in Table 1
represent a yearly production of about 20 mil-
lion tons of liquid steel. The electrical energy
consumption is 433 kWh/metric ton. Even if
some plants in this group consume only 318
kWh/t, the global average is much higher; the
trend is to go below 400 kWh/t, but for the Locations of the plants considered in the benchmark study.

July 2004 ✦ 2
 Table 1

Summary of Benchmark Data (Monthly Averages of Consecutive Months in 2002 or 2003)

Standard
Item Unit* Average deviation (%) Minimum Maximum

Intl. U.S. Intl. U.S. Intl. U.S. Intl. U.S.

Total charge metric ton short ton 101 111.8 41 24.2 26.7 196.5 216.6

Heat size metric ton short ton 87 95.8 40 21.3 23.5 160.0 176.4

Yield % 0.86 4 0.78 0.937

Power-on time minutes 52 43 15.2 160.0

Power-off time minutes 20 53 6.0 46.0

Tap-to-tap time minutes 72 40 43.0 203.0

Average active power MW 46 41 12.3 95.8

Electrical energy
consumption kWh/ton kWh/short ton 433 393 15 318 288 525 521

O2 consumption Nm3/ton scft 32 1,023 29 18.0 416 50.0 1,601

CH4 consumption Nm3/ton scft 5 146 72 0.0 0.0 13.0 416.5

Total carbon
consumption kg/ton lb/short ton 13 26 44 4.0 8.0 31.0 62.0

FeO in slag content % 34 25 28.0 46.0

Electrode consumption kg/ton lb/short ton 1.97 3.9 21 1.0 1.8 3.1 6.4

Tapping temperature °C °F 1,640 2,984 2 1,600 2,912 1,720 3,128

*Heat size and specific consumptions are referred to metric or short tons of tapped liquid steel.

moment this target has not yet been reached
for the majority of the plants.
The same consideration can be made for
electrode consumption: this value is decreas-
ing in Europe, and sometimes in the U.S., to
below 2 kg/ton, due in part to improvements
in electrode quality. However, even in other
countries, with no first-suppliers consumption
figures, this value is decreasing, due to the
introduction of foamy slag practice. At any
rate, even if there are some plants consuming
0.9 or 1.0 kg/ton in AC furnaces, there are
still plants that have electrode consumptions
of more than 3 kg/ton. This high value likely
stems from the age of the equipment used in
such furnaces.
Another consideration must be made
regarding tapping temperature. In the group
of plants considered, some depend on a ladle
furnace (LF) for steel treatment before cast-
ing, and others have no LF, so they have to tap
at high temperatures to prevent low tempera-
tures during casting. In fact, even if a LF is
very common equipment nowadays, there are
still plants working without it, yet maintaining
good production performance.
This analysis indicates once more that it is
quite difficult to come to general conclusions
by looking only at these data. Of course, the
figures for some plants are clearly different
from the others, but there was no good reason
to exclude those plants from the study. The
majority of the plants considered have some
“strange” but consistent figure; therefore, in
order to come to general conclusions, a dif-
ferent approach must be taken.
Benchmark of the EAFs
All data were adjusted to reflect the same tap-
ping temperature of 1,640°C, which is the
average tapping temperature of all the plants
(on the basis of 0.4 kWh/°C). Two parameters
were then considered: the total energy con-
sumption and the specific productivity.
• Total energy consumption (kWh/ton)
is the sum of electrical energy con-
sumption and thermochemical energy
consumption. To calculate the second
factor, standard efficiencies have been
given to natural gas (9.6 kWh/Nm3)
and oxygen (3.2 kWh/Nm3)
• Specific productivity is the furnace net
productivity — tons of liquid steel pro-
duced in the power-on time — divided
by the total furnace power (electrical
and chemical power, considering the
same rates as before). Specific produc-
tivity indicates tons produced per hour
per MW installed.
These two parameters constitute the y-axes
of the graphs in Figures 4 and 5, while the x-
axes indicate heat size. Grey dots are the
results of the calculation for each plant, while

3 ✦ Iron & Steel Technology

 Figure 4

dark dots denote the three EAFs using the KT

Injection System and matching the require-
ments for this benchmark. Those three plants
are IRO and Profilati Nave in Italy and
Davsteel in South Africa, which have been
using the KT system for at least two years, pro-
ducing carbon steel for long products.
The result of the parameter adjustment and
the following calculation indicates that:
• Average total energy consumption is
550.1 kWh/metric ton. The graph indi-
cates a trend line, representing a mini-
mum value of approximately 100 tons
and 537 kWh/ton. Total Energy Consumption Vs Heat size, the jump of some plants
after KT Installation
• Average specific productivity is 1.317
metric tons/hour/MW. The graph indi-
cates a trend line, representing a maxi-
mum value of approximately 90 tons Figure 5
and 1.362 tons/hour/MW.
In general, Techint experience over the
past several years has shown the following:
• If an EAF is below the average curve of
specific productivity, it can jump over
that curve by at least 0.25 tons/
hour/MW after the KT system is intro-
duced.
• If an EAF is above the average curve of
total energy consumption, introducing
KT can cause it to jump below that
curve by about 75 kWh/ton liquid steel
(tls).
This reflects four years of developing multi-
point injection systems for oxygen and carbon Specific Productivity Vs Heat size, the jump of some plants after KT
powder all over the world. Installation

Benchmark of the Plants Charging ed to 1,645°C and DRI in charge adjusted to

a High Percentage of DRI
Ten furnaces were considered for this second
benchmark. They are located in seven differ-
ent countries, produce at least 400,000
tons/year in each furnace (total production is
about 7 million tons) and use at least 50 per-
cent of DRI charged continuously from the
roof into the furnace.
The plants officially approved all data
shown in Table 2. While the names of those
plants are not disclosed here, many of them
are considered as reference plants for the DRI
melting process worldwide. Perwaja Steel Sdn
Bhd, Malaysia, is the only one named, as this
plant uses the KT Injection System.
As shown in Table 2, Perwaja is among the
group of plants with the best performance lev-
els. Perwaja has the lowest electrical consump-
tion with the highest rate of DRI percentage
in charge and the highest DRI feeding rate
specific on active power, which is a very good
parameter to compare different furnaces.
For an even better comparison, Table 2 was
recalculated, with tapping temperature adjust-
71 percent for all furnaces. Table 3 shows the
recalculation, which was done by giving stan-
dard values to the ratios kWh/°C (0.35) and
kWh/%DRI (1.69); these standard values are
the average of the values considered in each
one of the 10 plants for such conditions of
DRI in charge.
It is then possible to calculate the total ener-
gy input (by giving a standard value to O2 of
3.2 kWh/Nm3, average of values considered
in each one of the plants), and net productiv-
ity during power-on time, as seen in Table 4.
Conclusion
As it turns out, Perwaja has the lowest energy
consumption and the second highest net pro-
ductivity. Plant D has the second lowest con-
sumption, still below 600 kWh/ton liquid
steel. Plant H has higher net productivity but
very high energy consumption. Plants D and
H have a lower specific power per tons
charged, which is good and can be easily
explained with a lower ratio between bath sur-
face and steel volume. (Because of crane and

July 2004 ✦ 4
 Table 2

Plants Charging a High Percentage of DRI

Perwaja A B D E F G H I

Total Charge ton 84.7 87 87 116 137 173 190 230 220

DRI % 87.7 72 58 65 75 46 75 79 82

Heat size tls 75.2 79.7 79.4 105 117 150 160 190 190

Yield % 88.8 91.6 91.3 90.5 85.4 86.7 84.2 82.6 86.4

Power On Time min. 36 45 36 47 70 87 87 84.1 106

Avg. Active Power MW 57.9 62.7 68.8 69.7 55.5 69.3 71.7 88 66.1

EE consumption kWh/tls 462.9 590 520 520 553 670 650 649 615

O2 consumption Nm3/tls 45.6 20 30 19 25.6 27 20 26.3 18

C consumption kg/tls 27.8 6 6 14 12 24 25 12.8 12

FeO slag content % 29.6 31 32 29 33 23 32 35 28

Tapping Temp °C 1610 1650 1650 1662 1640 1650 1660 1643 1640

DRI metallization % 96.3 94.4 94.4 95 92.3 91.7 93 93 92

Total Iron in DRI % 90.9 91.5 91.5 93 91.4 90.6 90.8 91 89.11

DRI Car. content % 2.18 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.8 0.14 2.1 2.1 1.8

DRI Feeding Rate kg/min./MW 38.8 27 27.2 30.9 29.4 15 25.1 26.5 24.8

DRI Charging time min. 33 37 27 35 63 77 79 78 110

Table 3

Perwaja A B D E F G H I

Power On Time min. 33.9 44.9 37.4 47.9 69.1 91.6 86.0 82.2 106.0

Avg. Active Power MW 57.9 62.7 68.8 69.7 55.5 69.3 71.7 88.0 66.1

EE consumption kWh/tls 435.1 588.2 540.7 529.5 545.9 705.4 642.8 634.5 615.0

O2 consumption Nm3/tls 45.6 20.0 30.0 19.0 25.6 27.0 20.0 26.3 18.0

C consumption kg/tls 27.8 6.0 6.0 14.0 12.0 24.0 25.0 12.8 12.0

FeO slag content % 29.6 31.0 32.0 29.0 33.0 23.0 32.0 35.0 28.0

DRI Feeding Rate kg/min./MW 38.8 27.0 27.2 30.9 29.4 16.2 25.1 26.5 24.8

Table 4

Perwaja A B D E F G H I

Net Productivity t/h 133.1 106.5 127.3 131.6 101.6 98.3 111.6 138.7 107.5

Total Consumption kWh/t 581 652 637 590 628 792 707 719 673

Specific Power MW/ton 0.68 0.72 0.79 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.30

5 ✦ Iron & Steel Technology

 Figure 7

KT oxygen lances on pilot flame mode: EBT side (left) and slag door side (right).

building structure restrictions, Perwaja cannot
increase its heat size.)
Figures 7–9 illustrate the KT Injection
System installed and in use. Table 5 provides a
list of KT system installations worldwide.
This benchmark study confirms that by
using the KT Injection System, thereby
improving oxygen injection efficiency and
foamy slag practice for DRI furnaces, it is pos-
sible to reach high levels of productivity with-
out compromising the furnace conditions
(FeO in the slag and yield). This spells big
benefits in terms of variable cost reduction.
References
1. “High DRI Feeding Rate for an EAF-DC Using a
Multipoint Oxygen and Carbon Injection,” 14th
Steelmaking Seminar & 4th ISS Argentina Section
Meeting, Buenos Aires, Oct.13, 2003.
2. “New Electrical and Chemical Technologies
Implemented in the Dalmine Steel Plant,” MPT
International, Oct. 2002.

Figure 8

View of a KT natural gas valve stand and a KT oxygen valve stand.

Figure 9

The pneumatic carbon injection system (left) and one of the lances installed in the slag line (right).

July 2004 ✦ 6
 Table 5

Plants With KT Injection Systems

Start-up Plant Country EAF type KT system

Feb. 2005 Wheeling-Pittsburgh, United States EAF AC, 225 ton, Complete system: 5 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) Pittsburgh, Pa. Consteel system 4 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

May 2004 Heng Li, China EAF AC, 75 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) Ningxia Province Consteel system 3 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

Apr. 2004 CISCO, Cape Town South Africa EAF AC, 45 ton, Complete system: 2 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) 100% scrap 2 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

Feb. 2004 Wuxi Xuefeng Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., China EAF AC, 75 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) Wuxi, Xuefeng Province Consteel system 3 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

Feb. 2004 Perwaja Steel SDN BHD, Malaysia EAF DC No.5, 75 ton, Complete system: 4 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) Kemaman 90% DRI 2 KT carbon injectors

Dec. 2003 Acciaierie di catania, Italy EAF AC, 70 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) Catania 100% scrap 3 KT carbon injectors

Nov. 2003 CHIMET, Arezzo Italy SAF (Cu-Ar-Au), 3 ton, 2 KT oxygen lances, KT cooling blocks
(under work) 100% powder

Nov. 2003 TAMSA, Veracruz Mexico EAF AC, 150 ton, Complete system: 4 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) 20% DRI 3 KT burner/carbon injectors

Nov. 2003 Gerdau Cosigua, Brazil EAF AC, 100 ton, Furnace improvement: 1 KT oxygen
(under work) Rio de Janeiro 100% scrap lance, 1 KT carbon injector

Oct. 2003 OJI, Gunma – Tokio Japan EAF AC, 80 ton, Complete system: 4 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) 100% scrap 2 KT burner/carbon injectors

Oct. 2003 MSC, Mobarakeh Iran EAF No. 8, 182 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) 100% DRI 3 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

2003 Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Italy EAF AC, 80 ton, Furnace improvement : 1 KT oxygen
(under work) Odolo (Brescia) 100% scrap lance, 1 KT carbon injector, TDR-H

2003 Wei Chih, Kaohsiung Taiwan R.O.C. EAF AC, 100 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) Consteel system 3 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

2003 Kouzestan Steel Corp. – Iran EAF AC, 185 ton, Complete system, 3 KT oxygen lances,
(under work) KSC, Ahwaz 80% DRI 3 KT carbon injectors

Sept. 2003 Profilati Nave SpA, Italy EAF AC, 70 ton, System improvement: 4 KT oxygen
Montirone (Brescia) 100% scrap lances, 2 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

Aug. 2003 Davsteel, division of Cape South Africa EAF AC, 75 ton, System improvement: 4 KT oxygen
Gate Pty Ltd, Vanderbijlpark 15% DRI lances, 3 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

July 2003 MARIENHÜTTE, Graz Austria EAF AC, 45 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
100% scrap 3 KT carbon injectors

June 2003 SIDOR (Long Products), Venezuela EAF No.1, 150 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
Puerto Ordaz 80% DRI 1 KT carbon injector

Mar. 2003 Gerdau AmeriSteel, United States EAF AC, 55 ton, Furnace improvement: 1 KT carbon
Knoxville Consteel system injector

Jan. 2003 Perwaja Steel SDN BHD, Malaysia EAF DC No.4, 75 ton, Complete system: 4 KT oxygen lances,
Kemaman 90% DRI 2 KT carbon injectors

Dec. 2002 Ferriere Nord SpA, Italy EAF AC, 100 ton, System improvement: 2 KT LF-slag
Osoppo, Udine 100% scrap injectors, TDR-H

Sept. 2002 Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA Italy EAF AC, 70 ton, System improvement: 4 KT oxygen
(IRO), Odolo (Brescia) 100% scrap lances, 2 KT carbon injectors

Aug. 2002 Riva Acciaio SpA, Italy EAF AC No.2, 76 ton, Furnace improvement: 3 KT burn/
Verona 100% scrap C/CaO injectors, TDR-H

Aug. 2002 Riva Acciaio SpA, Italy EAF AC No.1, 76 ton, Furnace improvement: 3 KT burn/
Verona 100% scrap C/CaO injectors, TDR-H

Jan. 2002 EWK – Edelsthal Witten – Germany EAF AC, 130 ton, Complete system: 2 KT oxygen lances,
Krefeld GmbH Stainless steel 2 KT carbon injectors

Aug. 2001 TENARIS Dalmine, Italy EAF AC, 97 ton, Complete system: 2 KT oxygen lances,
Dalmine (Bergamo) 100% scrap 2 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

Aug. 2001 Makstil A.D. – Duferco Macedonia EAF AC, 110 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
Group, Skopie 100% scrap 3 KT carbon injectors

7 ✦ Iron & Steel Technology

 Table 5

Plants With KT Injection Systems (cont’d)

Start-up Plant Country EAF type KT system

June 2001 Siderurgica Sevillana SA – Spain EAF AC, 75 ton, Furnace improvement 2 KT carbon
Riva Group, Sevilla 100% scrap injectors

May 2001 Tianjin Pipe Corp. – China EAF AC, 150 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
TPCO, Tianjin 50% DRI 2 KT carbon injectors, 1 KT DRI-fines
injector

Mar. 2001 Ferriere Nord SpA, Italy EAF AC, 100 ton, Furnace improvement: 2 KT lime
Osoppo, Udine 100% scrap injectors

Jan. 2001 Davsteel, division of Cape South Africa EAF AC, 75 ton, Complete system: 3 KT oxygen lances,
Gate Pty Ltd, Vanderbijlpark 15% DRI 3 KT carbon injectors, TDR-H

Jan. 2001 IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi Italy EAF AC, 70 ton, Complete system: 2 KT oxygen lances,
SpA, Odolo (Brescia) 100% scrap 2 KT carbon injectors

Dec. 2000 George Fischer, Germany Cupola Furnace, New development: KT spout cooling
Mettmann (Düsseldorf) 70 tons/hour element

Oct. 2000 Profilati Nave S.p.A., Italy EAF AC, 70 ton, Complete system: 2 KT oxygen lances,
Montirone (Brescia) 100% scrap 2 KT carbon injectors

Aug. 1999 Sidenor Steel Co. SA, Greece EAF AC, 75 ton, Furnace improvement: 1 KT carbon
Thessalloniki 100% scrap injector

Sept. 1999 M.M.Z. Moldova EAF AC, 120 ton, Furnace improvement: 1 KT carbon
100% scrap injector

3. “Increase of Productivity in Dalmine Steel Plant
Through the Application of Innovative Electrical and
Chemical Technologies,” 7th European Electric Steel-
making Conference, Venice, May 26–29 2002.
4. “Operational Improvements Achieved in Davsteel
(division of Cape Gate Pty. Ltd., South Africa) Utilizing
the New Techint KT Injection System and TDR Digital
Regulation: A Case Study,” Electric Furnace
Conference, Phoenix, Ariz., Nov. 11–14, 2001.
5. “Aplicaciones y resultados de la tecnología ‘KT
Injection System’ en los hornos de arco eléctrico,” 13th
Steelmaking Seminar & 3rd ISS Argentina Section
Meeting, Buenos Aires, Oct. 29–Nov. 1, 2001.
6. “The Advanced ‘KT Injection System’ for Electrical
Arc Furnace With High Productivity,” AISE 2001 Iron
& Steel Exposition and Annual Convention, Cleveland,
Ohio, Sept. 23–26, 2001.
7. “La solución para incrementar la productividad
de un EAF: nueva regulación digital integrada con un
sistema de inyección oxígeno/carbón avanzado,” VII
Congreso Metalúrgico Cubano, La Habana, July
16–19, 2001.
8. “KT Injection System: State of the Art and Results
Achieved in the New Applications,” Current Electric Arc
Furnace Injection Technology, AIM Seminar, Milan,
July 4, 2001.
9. “KT Injection System: The Key for Chemical
Energy in High-performance Electric Arc Furnace,”
Millennium Steel, 2001. ✦

DID YOU KNOW?

Homeowners Vulnerable to Wildfires Prefer Steel Roofs
When faced with the threat of potentially devastating wildfires, 85 percent of consumers say
they would prefer a steel roof on their homes, a new survey finds. The results indicate that steel,
with its fire-retardant qualities, could become the new material of choice for residential roofing,
particularly in the wildfire-prone Western states. The survey, conducted by the global research
firm Wirthlin Worldwide, also found that among the group wielding primary influence on home
improvement purchases — women ages 18–54 — an even greater 93 percent said they favor
a steel roof. Asked whether they would favor a mandate to change local building codes to
require that roofs in fire-prone areas be constructed of fire-retardant materials like steel, two of
three said they support such a requirement. The American Iron and Steel Institute sponsored
the metal roofing–related survey.
To locate a roofing contractor in your area or to find detailed information about steel roof-
ing, visit www.metalroofing.com.

July 2004 ✦ 8
 Company Index — 045July

Techint 1
Davsteel 4
Perwaja Steel 4
Profilati Nave 7

Company Index – 045JulyFiller

Wirthlin Worldwide 8
American Iron and Steel Institute 8

9 ✦ Iron & Steel Technology

View publication stats