March 2009 65

T
he primary challenge faced by the reline
team working on revamping Severstal
NA C blast furnace (C BF) was developing
a scope of work that balanced installation of
the best available blast furnace equipment
and technologies within the duration of the
furnace outage. The initial 120-day outage
estimate was compressed to a timeline of 100
days. To achieve this reduced schedule, the
contractors and equipment suppliers were
required to use innovative approaches to the
construction and installation of the new fur-
nace shell.
The project scope was massive and encom-
passed the demolition of the old furnace
shell down to the concrete foundation, and
the removal of the dust catcher and wet gas
cleaning plant. A second taphole and new
casthouse were installed to improve furnace
availability and casting practices.
In addition, the scope of work included
integrating the existing stockhouse charging
controls with the new bell-less top, rebuild-
ing of the hot blast stove system, and the
construction of a closed-loop recirculating
cooling water system with plate heat exchang-
ers. A new furnace control room was built
with multiple display screens and a PLC-based
control system installed for furnace process
data acquisition and reporting. Above-burden
temperature and gas sampling probes were
installed to provide measurement of the blast
furnace condition and to provide input data
for the process computer models.
The revamping work for the furnace and
ancillary equipment was completed two days
ahead of schedule, allowing the blow-in of the
furnace to take place on day 98 of the sched-
uled 100 days.
Background
The steel manufacturing facility at Dearborn,
Mich., was originally built in 1917 and was
an integral part of the Ford River Rouge
Manufacturing complex. Rouge Steel Co. was
formed in 1981 as a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Ford Motor Co. In 1989, Rouge Steel
was sold to a group of investors and became an
independent steel producer, Rouge Industrial
Inc. On Jan. 30, 2005, OAO Severstal acquired
the assets of Rouge Industrial Inc. and formed
Severstal North America Inc. (SNA).
The highest annual raw steel production of
this facility has been 3,099,157 tons in 1998.
Since Severstal acquired the assets of Rouge
Steel Co., the future of the furnace has
undergone a critical review as part of a plan
to refurbish the mill facilities to make SNA
more competitive. A program to modernize
the Rouge Plant facilities was developed. In
February 2007, the program was approved by
the OAO Severstal board of directors, and the
construction began.
The modernization projects include
upgrades to C BF with an ultimate hot metal
production rate of 6,500 net tons per day,
construction of a secondary emissions control
baghouse at the BOF, straight mold upgrade to
the two strand casters, hot mill reheat furnace
Severstal NA C Blast
Furnace 2007 Revamping:
Equipment Design Transforms C BF
Into a World-Class Operation
Severstal North Americas C blast furnace
underwent a revamping in the fall of 2007. Criteria for
decisions on equipment replacement or enhancements
are presented and the benefits discussed.
Authors
Bruce Edwards, general manager blast furnace technology, Paul Wurth Ltd., Burlington, Ont.,
Canada (bruce.edwards@paulwurth.com); Art Cheng (left), manager technology, iron production,
and Stuart Street (right), process specialist iron producing, Severstal North America Inc., Dearborn,
Mich. (acheng@severstalna.com, sstreet@severstal.com); Bill Ebner, vice president engineering,
Paul Wurth Inc., Canonsburg, Pa. (bill.ebner@paulwurth.com); and Lionel Hausemer, project engi-
neer engineering, Paul Wurth S.A., Luxembourg, Luxembourg (lionel.hausemer@paulwurth.com)
66 Iron & Steel Technology
modernization, a new pickle line connected to
a new tandem mill, cold mill improvements,
and a new hot-dip galvanizing line.
The modernization program will reduce
operating costs and improve product capabil-
ity to meet the demands of automotive cus-
tomers and other markets. This would then
afford SNA a better chance to compete and
assure more security for SNA and its employ-
ees. The new C BF is a fundamental element
of the program and is the cornerstone of the
modernization program for SNA.
C Blast Furnace Design History
C BF was originally constructed in 1948 and
named the William Clay Ford blast furnace.
The first iron was produced on Nov. 22, 1948.
The furnace was built as an 8-column mantle
supported shell with the stack lining cooled by
plates. The furnace has been overhauled nine
times during its 59-year life, the most recent
being in 1991. Since 1948, the blast furnace
has been in continuous operation, until July
12, 2007, when the modernization process
began with the dismantling of the furnace
shell. Only the original eight support columns
remained and were incorporated into the
design of the new furnace shell.
1991 C BF Reline C BF had a hearth
diameter of 29 feet and a working volume of
53,176 ft.
3
. The furnace was a single-taphole
operation with fixed iron casting positions.
The burden charging system was a 2-bell
McKee top without a distributor. The rated
hot metal production was 4,500 net tons of
iron per day.
The 1991 furnace reline installed a com-
bined D-grade carbon and 70% alumina brick
in the hearth. The tuyere surrounds were built
with D-grade carbon. The hearth wall and
tuyere breast were constructed using NMA
carbon brick. The bosh refractory, NMA car-
bon brick, was cooled using water panels. The
furnace stack refractory linings were alumina-
based brick and cooled with stack plates.
The hot blast system was designed to deliver
an aim hot blast temperature of 1,950F.
The natural gas injection system was sized to
deliver at a rate of 150175 pounds per net
ton of iron.
Interim Outages for Repairs C BF pro-
duced 7,816,887 tons before it was shut down
in October 1996 for repairs to the bosh water
cooling system. The external cooling jackets
were replaced with cooling plates. The bosh,
stack and part of the hearth bottom refractory
linings were re-bricked. A CRM top replaced
the McKee top to improve the raw material
distribution.
The furnace was restarted in November
1996 and produced another 3,616,217 tons of
iron before it was taken off-line in February
1999 due to boiler house and wind deliv-
ery problems. The opportunity was taken to
renew the stack lining with a gunite spray job.
In addition, the tuyere surround carbon lin-
ing was replaced.
The furnace produced another 12,067,974
tons of iron between May 1999 and July 2008,
for a total iron production over the campaign
(19912007) of 23,501,078 tons of iron. Table
1 presents a summary of the iron production
history.
C Blast Furnace 2007 Revamping
Prior to the start of the detailed engineer-
ing for the 2007 revamping program, proj-
ect objectives and performance targets were
identified and set for the revamping team.
Representatives from engineering, operations
and the technical departments made up the
team.
Project Objectives Summary
Replace the existing furnace shell,
which had reached the end of its service
life.
Install a new furnace capable of an annu-
al iron production rate of 2,317,750 net
tons.
Install equipment and practices to com-
ply with environmental permit condi-
tions.
Complete the project with a capital cost
variance of no more than 10%.
Complete the rebuild in less than 105
days.
Achieve a project safety record signifi-
cantly better than industrial norms.
Performance Targets Summary
Installation of a baghouse and fume
collection system to meet casthouse
fugitive emission regulations.
A delay-free hot metal production rate
of 6,500 nthm/day.
An equipment utilization rate of 97.7%.
A pulverized coal injection delivery
rate of 300 lbs./nthm and an ultimate
capacity as much as 440 lbs./nthm.
C BF Iron Production History (19912007)
Time period Number of days nthm produced nthm/day
June 1991Oct. 1996 1,921 7,816,887 4,069
Nov. 1996Feb. 1999 820 3,616,217 4,410
May 1999July 2007 2,966 12,067,974 4,069
Campaign total 5,707 23,501,078 4,118
Table 1
March 2009 67
A furnace campaign life of 15+ years
(potentially 20 years).
Scope of Work
The major equipment changes and installa-
tions completed during the revamping work
for C BF have been summarized following the
performance objectives set for the furnace:
Meet environmental emissions regula-
tions:
- Installation of the casthouse emission
control system consisting of fume col-
lection ductwork and filter baghouse.
- Covered iron and slag runners in a
flat casthouse floor design.
- New dust catcher with an automatic
dumping system.
- New Paul Wurth Triple Annual Gap
Element wet gas scrubber.
A delay-free productivity of 6,500 net
tons of iron/day:
- Two electrical blowers with new cold
blast system and bustle pipe.
- A Paul Wurth bell-less furnace top for
improved burden charging and distri-
bution.
- Installation of a second taphole in the
new east casthouse.
- Iron and slag tilter positions are
equipped with radar probes to mea-
sure the liquid level in the iron and
slag ladles for optimum filling and
casting practices.
- Installation of a new PLC control sys-
tem (Control Logix) for blast furnace
monitoring and control.
- Installation of a level 2 VAIron BF
Process Advisory Control system.
An equipment utilization rate of
97.7%:
- Hydraulically operated mud guns and
taphole drills for both tapholes.
- Automatic stove changing and firing
control system.
A pulverized coal injection delivery
rate of 300 lbs./nthm and an ultimate
capacity of 440 lbs./nthm.
- Danieli Corus pulverized coal injec-
tion system.
A furnace campaign life of 15+ years
(potentially 20 years):
- A new steel shell and a new closed-
loop recirculating cooling water sys-
tem for the bosh and stack staves.
- Copper cooling plates in the tuyere
jacket, copper staves for the bosh and
cast-iron staves for the stack.
- A channeled cooled hearth and a
water-cooled hearth bottom.
- Three re-bricked hot blast stoves
with VAI refractory design and new
domes.
Revamping Schedule
Once the scope of the furnace revamping was
set, attention was focused on the construction
and erection schedule. Severstal wanted to
reduce the outage duration time from 120
days to approximately 100 days. Reline con-
tractors and equipment suppliers were chal-
lenged to bring forward innovative methods
and approaches to the teardown, supply and
erection of the furnace shell.
The key to achieving the reduced schedule
was changing the distribution and timing of
Figure 1
Pre-assembled large sections furnace shell.
Figure 2
Pre-assembled top cone and uptakes.
68 Iron & Steel Technology
erection work. Traditional erection methods
involve the setting and fitting of shell plate,
piece by piece. This is a slow method of con-
struction due to work interferences of vertical
assembly. The pre-assembly of the new fur-
nace shell off-site was determined to be the
best approach to the furnace shell replace-
ment. These 360

sections were assembled
complete with stave water cooling panels,
galleries, electrical wiring and piping services.
The furnace shell was then assembled in large
modular sections utilizing a heavy lift crane
with a 1,000-ton capacity.
A total of seven major lifts were required to
install the furnace shell from the hearth up to
the bleeder deck. The heaviest lift was a mid-
stack section of 500 tons. This method was also
used on the installation of the gas scrubber,
which was constructed in three large sections
over its 125-foot height (Figures 13). Figure
4 shows the new east casthouse, which was
erected off-site, being moved into position on
a series of self-propelled modular transport-
ers. The rubber-tired transporters are highly
maneuverable and moved the 1,000-ton cast-
house structure into position in less than 8
hours.
The big block or modular approach to
the erection of steel works was also used in
the demolition of the old steel shell. The
end result was a quicker and more efficient
use of time and resources that reduced the
planned outage duration by approximately
1520 days.
Project Safety Record The project had
an excellent safety record. The reportable
accident frequency was 2.7, compared to the
national construction rate of 5.7 for the 1.5
million man-hours worked during the outage.
All commissioning activities that powered up
equipment were coordinated through the
safety superintendent and discussed at the
morning review meetings with the crew safety
contacts.
Furnace Lines vs. Iron Production
The establishment of the furnace lines and
working volume for the new furnace resulted
in a number of significant changes to the
furnace profile. It became clear that C BF was
undersized for the desired iron production
rate of 6,500 net tons per day. This iron pro-
duction rate is 44% higher than the previous
operating rates. Thus, there was a need to
adjust the furnace lines for a larger working
volume and a deeper hearth sump that would
accommodate the higher volumes of iron and
furnaces gases.
The one design constraint for the new steel
shell was the retention of the eight columns
that supported the furnace at the mantle.
Removal of the columns would require an
expensive redesign of C BF to either a free-
standing furnace or 4-post platform design
that was not in the revamping budget.
The furnace hearth diameter was increased
from 29 to 30.3 feet, and similarly the throat
diameter was increased from 22 to 25 feet. The
internal furnace volume was further increased
by installing a deeper sump, which increased
the hearth volume or capacity by 48%. The
final volume adjustment was achieved by
Figure 4
New east casthouse being moved (1,000 tons) using modular
transporters.
Figure 3
500 tons of stack shell lifted into position.
March 2009 69
designing a belly section and the use of cop-
per and cast-iron staves in the bosh, belly and
stack with associated thinner linings. The new
furnace lines gave a working volume of 63,427
ft.
3
, or a 19.4% increase in working volume.
C BF hearth diameter and working volume
statistics were compared to other blast fur-
naces around the world and were found to be
acceptable, as shown in Figure 5.
The productivity factor (net tons iron/100
ft.
3
of working

volume) was reviewed for an
iron production rate of 6,500 net tons per day.
The installation of a belly section added extra
internal volume, with the resulting productivi-
ty rate of 10.3 net tons/100 ft.
3
. Figure 6 shows
C BF production rate vs. working volume com-
pared to other blast furnace operations. C BF
is positioned as a world-class operation.
The overall lining changes to the furnace
lines are shown in Figure 7. Note: the before
and after lining profiles were drawn and ref-
erenced to a common elevation of the tuyere
centerline for comparison of profile differenc-
es. Table 2 is a numerical summary of notable
differences in the furnace lines and the effect
on internal furnace volumes.
Equipment and Technologies
The stated iron production rate for the new
C BF was set at 10.2 net tons/100 ft.
3
of work-
ing volume and is in the upper range of pro-
ductivity rates for blast furnaces. To ensure
success in achieving this production goal,
the C BF equipment design and selection
focused on proven blast furnace equipment
and technologies.
For C BF, the major equipment and tech-
nology upgrades/enhancements are summa-
rized as follows:
Paul Wurth bell-less top and charge
model for improved burden distribu-
tions and a smoother operating fur-
nace (lower fuel rates and longer cam-
paigns).
Installation of the second taphole com-
bined with TMT hydraulically operated
Figure 6
C BF compared to other blast furnace operations for net
tons iron produced.
Figure 5
Comparison of the new C BF (hearth diameter 30.3 feet
and working volume 62,472 ft.
3
) to other world-class blast
furnaces.
Notable Changes in C BF Internal Volumes Before and
After Revamping
Furnace parameters Units Before revamp After revamp
Hearth diameter ft. 29 30.3
Throat diameter ft. 22 25
Working volume ft.
3
53,176 63,472
(+19.4%)
Bosh angle degree () 81.5 76.3
Hearth volume ft.
3
5266 7824
Sump depth ft. 4.5 6.9
(+53.3%)
Number of tuyeres 20 20
Number of tapholes 1 2
Hot metal production nthm 4,500 6,500
Production rate: nt/100 CF WV rate 8.4 10.2
Table 2
70 Iron & Steel Technology
taphole drills and mud guns with the
capability to automatically open and
close the taphole.
Gas scrubber is a key installation for
high-top-pressure operation. High top
pressure (20 psig) is a requirement
for high furnace productivity and high
rates of pulverized coal injection.
Blast furnace process control.
The installation of a supervisory control
and data acquisition (SCADA) system
for acquisition and reporting of blast
furnace process measurements for use
in process model calculations.
Paul Wurth Bell-Less Top for Improved
Burden Distributions Part of the revamping
scope was the replacement of the old charging
equipment, a CRM double bell hopper that
was installed during the 1996 repair outages.
A new Paul Wurth parallel Hopper Bell-Less
Top
TM
was chosen as the replacement.
The goal was to improve the furnace avail-
ability, reduce maintenance costs, improve
the burden material distribution for a better
gas distribution control, and meet the iron
production rate of 6,500 net tons per day. The
bell-less top is also considered essential equip-
ment for successful high-PCI fuel practices.
C BF is charged via a belt conveyor at a
maximum flowrate of 1,000 lbs./second for
pellets and 350 lbs./second of coke. Figure
8 provides a cross-reference diagram for the
bell-less top. The burden material is dis-
charged into a receiving hopper (1), and is
directed into the appropriate top hopper by
the distribution rocker (2). The hoppers have
a maximum working capacity of 1,231 ft.
3

each. The diameter of the upper seal valve
disc (3) for the hoppers is 31.5 inches.
Primary equalization of the material hop-
per is achieved by using semi-clean blast fur-
nace gas to pressurize the material hopper
to within several pounds of the top pressure.
A secondary equalization system using nitro-
gen completes the hopper pressurization to
furnace top pressure. Nitrogen flows into the
hopper as the material is discharged to pre-
vent backflow of dirty furnace gases that cause
wear on the valve disc and seats.
The lower seal valves (LSV 7) are located at
the base of each hopper and open to allow the
discharge of the burden materials through the
lower material gates (LMG 6). The two LSV
and two LMG are placed in a surrounding
structure called a valves actuation unit (5).
The LMG opens to control the material flow-
rate to the discharge funnel (8). The furnace
top PLC tracks and stores material discharge
times for the last 10 dumps of material into
the furnace to compare the calculated to the
actual discharge times and feed back a correc-
tion factor for the material gate opening.
The valves actuation unit also comes with
two big blasters, one behind each material
gate. The big blasters include a nitrogen tank
with a quick-release valve that removes dirt
and dust accumulations behind the LMG after
each opening. After discharge is completed,
the material hoppers are depressurized and
ready for the next material.
Figure 7
Comparison of C BF lines before and after the 2007 revamping.
Additional details are shown as to the water cooling systems. The
equipment selection of staves cooling panels to replace the stack
plates increased the working volume significantly.
March 2009 71
The empty signal for completed material
dump from a top hopper is determined using
the load cells installed on each top hopper to
monitor the weight. Sonic detectors, located
below the LSV, provide a secondary means to
detect an empty hopper by monitoring the
sound (noise) that the burden material makes
as it flows on the internal metal surface.
The burden materials are charged and
layered at the furnace top using a chute that
rotates 360 and drops vertically, allowing
almost infinite possibilities for the placement
materials. The water-cooled transmission gear-
box (12) sits on the top flange. The gearbox
has a planetary gear drive (9) that enables the
simultaneous rotation and tilting (13) of the
3.5-m distribution chute (15).
Charge Model for Bell-Less Top Because of
the nearly unlimited possibilities to distribute
burden materials with the distribution chute,
a tool was developed to help the blast furnace
operator determine potential burden distri-
butions prior to implementing the charge
sequence on the furnace. This aid came in the
form of a mathematical calculation or charge
model that would predict the shape, profile
and location of the burden materials. This
visual aid is a quick and easy way to compare
burden distributions for problems and issues
with material placement.
The prime inputs into the calculations are
the charge sequence, weights of materials and
ring settings. Measurement of the material
falling curves (which were made during the
initial furnace fill) is required for the model
calculation. The material trajectories are used
to determine the burden profile, layering and
ore/coke ratios across the burden. Figure 9 is
an example of the charge modelcalculated
burden distribution and profile output.
Installation of the Second Taphole To
further improve the stability and promote
good casting practices, a second taphole was
installed, offset 90 from the north taphole. A
new east casthouse was constructed, complete
with a 25-ton overhead crane.
A common casting control room was locat-
ed between the two casthouses, so that viewing
windows allowed a clear line of sight for safe
operation of the taphole drills and mud guns.
Modern, TMT hydraulically operated taphole
drills and mud guns were installed on both
tapholes. To conserve casthouse floor space,
the drills and guns were located on the same
side of the taphole.
Figure 10 depicts the taphole drill, and
Figure 11 shows the mud gun installation on
C BF. Remote, radio control operation of the
drills and guns allows for direct observations
on the opening and closing of the taphole.
Within four months of start-up, the taphole
was being closed almost 100% in automatic
mode and opening the taphole about 75%
of the time in automatic mode, with progress
being made with the casting crews.
The new casthouse layout is detailed in
Figure 12. The outline of the old single
Figure 8
Cross-reference diagram for the PW bell-less top description.
72 Iron & Steel Technology
taphole arrangement is compared to the new
double-taphole setup. The new iron trough is
21 feet longer than the prior trough. Iron and
slag titling runners replaced the fixed-position
casting.
Gas Scrubber A new annular gap scrub-
ber (AG scrubber) was installed on C BF for
simultaneous gas cleaning and top pressure
control. Three hydraulically operated cone ele-
ments provide dedusting of the blast furnace
Figure 9
Example of the charge modelcalculated burden distribution and profile.
Figure 10
TMT hydraulically operated taphole drill.
Figure 11
TMT hydraulically operated mud gun.
March 2009 73
gas stream to particles less than 1
m in size. Total water requirements
for gas cleaning are reduced by the
recirculation of the contact water.
These same AG elements simultane-
ously provide top pressure control.
The scrubber tank and piping
were protected against chloride
(HCl acid) attack by painting an
anti-corrosive agent on the internal
steel work to seal the surface and by
building the large-diameter water
piping using stainless steel.
Blast Furnace Process Control
Stable and smooth operation of the
blast furnace requires basic control
functions to have high availability
and repeatable performance. The
large amounts of process measure-
ments (pressures, flowrates, tem-
peratures and weights) necessitated
the installation of a SCADA system.
A new Ethernet communications
network was installed to create a data high-
way that connected all the remote furnace
areas.
The new C BF has a process control system
to guide the furnace operator: a Siemens VAI
advisory expert system package of the VAIron
level 2 blast furnace control system.
Figure 12
C BF comparison of the old single-taphole layout to the new double tapholes.
Figure 13
C BF blow-in blast conditions for the first 11 days of operation.
74 Iron & Steel Technology
The advisory expert system has the follow-
ing process models:
Burden control model.
Shaft simulation model.
Indirect reduction model.
Raceway calculation model.
Flame temperature model.
Tapping management model.
Blast simulation model.
The new blast furnace office building con-
tains the new furnace control room with
operator stations (HMI) and wall-mounted
display screens.
Blow-In
The furnace was blown in Oct. 18, 2007, when
wind was put on at 5 p.m. at 80,000 scfm. The
furnace was restarted using the north taphole,
keeping the east one in reserve. The first iron
was cast to slag pots until hot metal tempera-
ture and volumes increased sufficiently for the
iron to be used at the BOF steel shop. No. 14
tuyere was lost on start-up with a burnt nose
compartment.
Figure 13 illustrates trends of the blast con-
ditions, and Figure 14 shows the trend of the
hot metal production and temperature dur-
ing the blow-in.
Blowers and Pulverized Coal
Injection Facilities
The following facilities are being installed
after the blow-in of the furnace due to delivery
schedules of the equipment.
Previously, C BF wind was generated by two
steam blowers. To operate at higher top pres-
sures and at higher wind rates, two new axial
blowers are being installed. The axial blowers
are rated at 25,183 hp and are designed to
run at speeds between 4,080 and 5,355 rpm,
producing up to 163,000 scfm at a maximum
operating pressure of 88 psig. The new blow-
ers are being installed in a new separate build-
ing and will be tied into the existing cold blast
main with a new snort valve.
An integral component of the rebuilt C
BF was the adoption of pulverized coal injec-
tion technology (Daneili Corus). Primary
components in the PCI system include:
pulverized coal bin, three feed tanks, coal
distributor, tuyere Blocktector system and
tuyere lances. The PCI system is designed
to run at a maximum rate of 440 lbs./nthm.
The pulverized coal bin has a capacity of
950 tons, and will allow for 16 hours of coal
delivery at full production. Coal is gravity-
fed from the coal bin into one of three feed
tanks. Nitrogen is used to transport the coal
into the proprietarily designed coal distribu-
tor. The coal flowrate is controlled by nitro-
gen pressure using a load cell system that
controls to a target setpoint, using a lbs./
nthm injection rate basis. The distributor is
designed such that equal delivery rates are
achieved at each tuyere. A Blocktector sys-
tem will be installed to monitor and alarm a
blocked tuyere event.
Conclusion
The 2007 revamping of C BF was completed
ahead of schedule and installed modern, state-
of-the-art blast furnace equipment and tech-
nologies. Equipment design and selection has
Figure 14
C BF trend of hot metal production and temperature with blow-in coke rate with HM Si (x1,000).
March 2009 75
transformed Severstal NA C BF into a world-
class operation.
Innovative construction and erection meth-
ods reduced the furnace outage by approxi-
mately 1520 days. The revamping was com-
pleted with a safety record that had fewer
lost-time accidents and first aid incidents
compared to industry standards.
The equipment and technologies have posi-
tioned C BF with the tools to achieve 6,500
net tons of iron per day. Current operating
performance has demonstrated a production
output at this rate.
Did you find this article to be of significant relevance to the advancement of steel technology? If so,
please consider nominating it for the AIST Hunt-Kelly Outstanding Paper Award at www.aist.org/huntkelly.
This paper was presented at AISTech 2008 The Iron & Steel Technology Conference and Exposition,
Pittsburgh, Pa., and published in the Conference Proceedings.
U.S. Blast Furnace Production Reaches 20-Year Low
The worldwide economic crisis has led U.S. steel producers to cut back on their production in a
measure not seen in decades. The following data shows U.S. and Canadian blast furnace capacity
versus levels of production as of December 2008.
Total capacity No. of BFs Current
USA mill Total BFs (tons) currently running tonnage
Arcelor Mittal 9 48,600 3 15,300
U. S. Steel 12 48,800 4 15,500
Severstal 5 25,500 1 3,800
AK Steel 2 11,500 1 6,300
Republic 1 3,500 0 0
Total USA 29 137,900 9 40,900
Total capacity No. of BFs Current
Canadian mill Total BFs (tons) currently running tonnage
Arcelor Mittal 3 10,403 2 5,602
U. S. Steel 2 12,300 1 4,400
Essar 2 10,500 1 4,500
Total Canada 7 33,203 4 14,502
Source: American Iron and Steel Institute.
DID YOU KNOW?