A SYSTEMS STUDY OF DESULPHURIZATION

STRATEGY IN RELATION TO THE SULPHUR AND ASH

CONTENT OF COKING COALS

Item type

text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors

Emerson, Steven Dana

Publisher

The University of Arizona.

Rights

Copyright is held by the author. Digital access to this

material is made possible by the University Libraries,
University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction
or presentation (such as public display or performance) of
protected items is prohibited except with permission of the
author.

Downloaded

21-Nov-2016 04:54:26

Link to item

http://hdl.handle.net/10150/298603

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blui ?d copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning"
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued againbeginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Microfilms
International
300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, M l 48106
18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WCIR 4EJ, ENGLAND

8006732

EMERSON, STEVEN DANA

A SYSTEMS STUDY OF DESULPHURIZATION STRATEGY IN RELATION

TO THE SULPHUR AND ASH CONTENT OF COKING COALS

The University of Arizona

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

1979

18 Bedford Row, London WCIR 4EI, England

PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this
document have been identified here with a check mark
.
1.

Glossy photographs

2.

Colored illustrations

3.

Photographs with dark background

"4.

Illustrations are poor copy

5.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

6.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

7.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine

8.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print

9.

Page(s)
lacking when material received, and not available
from school or author

10.

Page(s)
follows

11.

Poor carbon copy

12.

Not original copy, several pages with blurred type

13.

Appendix pages are poor copy

14.

Original copy with light type

15.

Curling and wrinkled pages

16.

Other

seem to be missing in numbering only as text

Universi^

MioailrTis
International
300 N. 2EEB RO., ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 ^313) 761-4700

throughout

A SYSTEMS STUDY OF DESULPHURIZATION STRATEGY IN RELATION TO

THE SULPHUR AND ASH CONTENT OF COKING COALS

by
Steven Dana Emerson

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WITH A MAJOR IN METALLURGY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 7 9

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

GRADUATE COLLEGE

I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction

Steven Dana Emerson

by

entitled A Systems Study of Desulphurization Strategy in

Relation to the Sulphur and Ash Content of Coking Coals
be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

of

\/3//79
Date

Dissertation Director

As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have

read this dissertation and agree that it may be presented for final
defense.

n~.
<.

/o ho h9
Date

nLi.UJAy\
/J.
Date
Date

Pinal approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent on the

candidate's adequate performance and defense thereof at the final oral
examination.

11/78

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial
fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The
University of Arizona and is deposited in the University
Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of
the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are
allowable without special permission, provided that
accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for
permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of
this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the
head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate
College when in his judgment the proposed use of the
material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other
instances, however, permission must be obtained from the
author.

SIGNED:,

Ul/y?-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A nuinber of individuals deserve my gratitude for the
assistance they gave over the years in graduate school.
The interest and timely help of Mr. Norman Mills and
his Process Research group at Inland Steel is sincerely
appreciated.

In addition, the financial assistance made

possible by the Inland Ryerson Foundation deserves special

recognition.
As representatives of the minor department, Drs.
John Trzeciak and Lucien Duckstein are thanked for the
excellent classes they conducted.
The support of Drs. Tom Morris and Ken Keating,
faculty members of the major department, is appreciated as
is the effort of Dr. Gordon Geiger in providing direction as
thesis advisor.

His time spent in arranging completion of

the dissertation is also noted with gratitude.

Mrs. Ruth Green is recognized for her unfailing help
in preparing the first draft of this document, and more
importantly, for extending her close personal friendship.
Finally, the understanding of my wife is acknowl
edged.

The years in school were sometimes trying but her

determined support is noted with love.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

vii

LIST OF TABLES

xi

ABSTRACT

xii

CHAPTER
1.

2.

INTRODUCTION

1.1
1.2

3
5

SYSTEMS APPROACH TO PROCESS OPTIMIZATION ...

2.1
2.2
2.3

3.

Literature Survey: Optimization in

Process Metallurgy
Systems Analysis of the Present Problem .
Discrete Deterministic Dynamic
Programming

METALLURGICAL COKING COAL AND ITS

PREPARATION
3.1

3.2

4.

Definition of the Problem . .

Synopsis

Coal Composition and Its Quantification .

3.1.1 Sulphur in Coal
3.1.2 Ash in Coal
3.1.3 Coal Analysis
Metallurgical Coal Washing Model ....
3.2.1 Assumptions
3.2.2 Development of Characteristic
Curves for Coal Washing
Alternatives
3.2.3 Flotation
3.2.4 Mixed Integer Linear Programming
Approach

7
7
11
12
22
22
22
25
26
28
29
30
38
39

COKE MANUFACTURE

48

4.1

55

Coke Oven Model

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTSContinued
Page
5.

6.

7.

BLAST FURNACE IRONMAKING

64

5.1

71

EXTERNAL DESULPHURIZATION

79

6.1

85

9.

External Desulphurization Model

BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE STEELMAKING

7.1

8.

Blast Furnace Metallurgical Model ....

Thermochemical Basic Oxygen Furnace

Model

98
103

COST MODELS

107

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5

107
114
119
124
131

Coal Preparation Cost Model

Coke Stage Cost Model
Blast Furnace Cost Model
External Desulphurization Cost Model . .
BOF Cost Model

RESULTS

135

9.1
9.2

135
143
143

Explanation of Procedure
Tabular Result Summaries
9.2.1
Base Case Definition ......
9=2.2
Run 3D, Feasibility of Direct
Shipment of Coking Coal
9.2.3
Run 7D, Feasibility of Direct
Shipment Under Doubled Coal
Price
9.2.4
Run 4D, Optimal Route with Direct
Shipping Not Considered
9.2.5
Run 21D, Increased Lime Price . .
9.2.6
Run 20D, Doubled Energy Costs . .
9.2.7
Run 25D, Running to 0.050% S in
Steel Maximiam Specification .
9.2.8
Run 2A, Prepared Coal A with
Base Cost Set
9.2.9
Run 12A, No External De
sulphurization AllowedCoal A
9.2.10 Run lOA, Doubling in the Energy
CostsCoal A
9.2.11 Run 13A, No External De
sulphurization with Doubled
Energy Cost--Coal A

149
156
160
169
169
176
177
189
190
190

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTSContinued
Page
9.2.12
10.

11.

Run 15A, Running to 0.050% S

Maximum in Steel

191

CONCLUSIONS

193

10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6

193
194
196
196
197
198

General
Coal Preparation and Shipping
Coking
Blast Furnace
External Desulphurization
BOF

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

APPENDIX A.

199

HIGH TEMPERATURE HEAT AND MATERIAL

BALANCE FOR THE BLAST FURNACE ....

201

APPENDIX B.

DATA SETS FOR EACH MODEL PROGRJ^M

208

APPENDIX C.

PROGRAM LISTINGCOALS.TAB

215

APPENDIX D.

PROGRAM LISTINGCOKE.TAB ........

251

APPENDIX E.

PROGRAM LISTINGBLAST.TAB

259

...

APPENDIX P. PROGRAM LISTINGEXTDES.TAB

285

APPENDIX G.

PROGRAM LISTINGBOF.TAB

292

APPENDIX H.

PROGRAM LISTINGDP.CDC

LIST OF REFERENCES

...

303
322

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1.1

Page
Sulphur Balance for an Integrated
Iron and Steel Plant

1.2

System Structure Used in the Study

2.1

Flowchart for Dynamic Programming

Algorithm

17

System Structure and Sizes of Return

and Transformation Tables

21

Characteristic Curves for Two-Stage

Hydrocyclones

32

3.2

Characteristic Curves for Tabling

32

3.3

Characteristic Curve for Spiral Classifier .

33

3.4

Characteristic Curves for Jigs

33

3.5

Characteristic Curves for Dense Media

Cyclones

34

Characteristic Curve for Dense Media

Vessel . . .

34

3.7

Characteristic Curve for Chance Cone ....

35

3". 8

Example Coal Preparation System

42

3.9

Mixed Integer Linear Programming Matrix

for Simplified Example of Figure 3.8 .. .

43

3.10

Flowchart for Coal Preparation Model ....

45

4.1

Mass Balance for By-product Coke Oven ....

49

4.2

Cause and Effect Relationships in the

Production of High Quality Coke

51

Flowchart for Coking Model

56

2.2
3.1

3.6

4.3

vii

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSContinued
Figure

5.1

Factors Governing Blast Furnace

Productivity

65

Factors Governing the Amount of Sulphur

Leaving the Blast Furnace in the Hot
Metal

68

5.3

Flowchart for Blast Furnace Model

73

6.1

Factors Governing Effective External

Desulphurization

80

Model Used to Predict Final Sulphur

Level at Fixed Values of Initial
Sulphur Level and Reagent Consumption ...

88

Flowchart of External Desulphurization

Model

95

7.1

Factors Governing Productivity in the BOF . .

99

7.2

Flowchart for BOF Model

8.1

Total External Desulphurization Stage Cost

126

9.1

Washability Curve for Low-Sulphur Coal A . .

136

9.2

Washability Curve for High-Sulphur Coal D . .

136

9.3

Base Case (No External Desulphurization

Allowed

144

Optimal RouteCoal DDirect Ship

Possible

150

Close Alternate Conditions to Optimal

Route3D

152

9.6

Lowest-Cost Direct Ship RouteCoal D . . . .

154

9.7

OptimumCoal D--Doubled Coal Cost

157

9.8

Close Alternate Conditions to Optimal 7D . .

158

9.9

Lowest-Cost Direct Ship RouteDoubled

Coal Price

159

5.2

6.2

6.3

9.4
9.5

Page

104

ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSContinued
Figure

Page

9.10

OptimalWashed Coal D

9.11

Close Alternate Conditions to 4D Optimal

9.12

Close Alternative to 4D Optimal at

Coal Stage

164

Cost Effect of Blast Furnace Decision

Variables4D

166

Probable Highest-Cost Feasible Route if

Coal Preparation Included

168

Optimal for Doubled Energy Costs for

Lime Calcination

170

Optimal Route for Doubled Costs and Credits

for All Energy Sources

171

Close Alternate Route to 20D Optimal

Solution

172

Close Alternative Scheme in Run 20D that

was Optimal Under Base Costs

173

9.13
9.14
9.15
3.16
9.17
9.18

161
..

163

9.19

Optimal0.050% S MaximumCoal D

9.20

Close Alternate Route to OptimalRun 25D . ,

178

9.21

Optimal RouteWashed Coal A ........

179

9.22

Close Alternate Conditions to Optimal2A . .

180

9.23

Least-Cost Route with no External

DesulphurizationCoal A

181

Close Alternate Conditions when no External

Desulphurization is AllowedCoal A . . . .

182

9.25

OptimalDoubled Energy CostsCoal A . . . .

183

9.26

Close Alternate Conditions to OptimallOA .

184

9.24

, 175

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSContinued
Figure

Page

9.27

Least-Cost Route13A

185

9.28

Close Alternative RouteRun 13A

186

9.29

Optimal0.050% S Maximum in SteelCoal A

187

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1

Page
Input and Decision Variables to the Five
Stages

19

3.1

Ash Analyses from Bituminous Coals

25

3.2

Coal Size Fractions Considered, Appropriate

Washing Methods, and Convention Observed
in Numbering Options in This Study . . . .

28

Algorithm to Determine Specific Gravity of

Separation

37

Distribution of Sulphur in Output Streams

as Percentage of Total Sulphur in Coal . .

60

External Desulphurization Constants and

Industrial Data Sources

89

Temperature Loss Factors for External

Desulphurization

92

Approximate Capital Costs in $/Ton-Hr

for Various Coal-Washing Processes
(May 1978)

109

Direct Operating Costs Considered in

Coal-Washing Model

110

Water Requirements, Flotation Reagent

Costs, and Heavy Media Consumption
(May 1978)

Ill

Reagent Consumption and Base Reagent

Cost for 18 Desulphurization Alternatives .

127

Fixed Costs for Desulphurization

Alternatives per Ton of Hot Metal as
Per Cent of Mag-coke Reagent Cost for
Standard Case

130

9.1

Cost Data Sets Used in Model Runs

138

9.2

Summary of Model Runs

140

3.3
4.1
6.1
6.2
8.1

8.2
8.3

8.4
8.5

xi

ABSTRACT
The control of sulphur in finished steel products is
assuming more importance as certain applications demand
lower sulphur levels while at the same time raw material
sulphur contents are increasing.

The objective of this

research is to investigate in detail the physicochemical and

economic interactions involved in removing sulphur from the
system comprising an integrated steel plant.
Mathematical models are constructed to represent the
discrete conceptual stages in steel production.

In order,

the five stages considered in the present work are: coking

coal preparation, coke manufacture, blast furnace ironmaking,
external desulphurization of hot metal, and refining of
steel in the basic oxygen furnace.
Due to important nonlinear behavior of certain
elements in the system, the Dynamic Programming form of
optimization is used to identify the least-cost means for
producing steel with a prescribed maximum sulphur content.
The coal source is described at the same time in terms of
its sulphur and ash content (0.74% and 15%, respectively).
For purposes of comparison with results from the
optimization studies, the input and decision variables
associated with a base case are also defined to correspond
roughly with typical industrial practice.
xii

Desulphurization

xiii

of the hot metal external to the blast furnace is not

included in this decision set.
Optimal paths are identified for each of four sets
of cost data.

These are:

the cost set representing the

best estimate of present-day economics, the costs occurring

with a doubling in the price of coal, the set resulting
from a doubling in the cost of limestone calcination, and
the cost set anticipated under a doubling in energy costs.
The optimal paths for steel production using these
same cost sets are then ascertained for a second coal ex
hibiting a significantly higher sulphur content (3.4%).
Under the present set of costs, the optimal scheme
for the low-sulphur coal includes external desulphurization,
while on the other hand desulphurization in the blast
furnace is preferred for the coke made from the cleaned
higher-sulphur coal.

With doubled costs and credits for

energy-related factors, external desulphurization is chosen

in all cases, due largely to the beneficial changes in
blast furnace cokerate that can accrue with its use.
Finally, the substantial importance of proper coal
preparation is emphasized.

A penalty of nearly $10 per ton

of steel is anticipated if the higher-sulphur coking coal

is not prepared but instead shipped directly to the coking
stage.

This cost penalty is associated with the increased

cokerate and diminished productivity of the blast furnace

when utilizing coke with high sulphur and ash content.

xiv

Coal preparation assimes even more importance as

coal prices increase, but an economic limit to coal prepara
tion is suggested when subsequent savings downstream do not
compensate for the marginal preparation expense and yield
loss from an incremented improvement in final coal cleanli
ness.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Sulphur has been recognized for a long time as a
deleterious element in steel.

It contributes to hot short

ness in the hot-rolled structure and consequent poor

surface quality, as well as diminished physical.properties
in the final steel product.
Researchers at Battelle (1) compiled a report on
pollution problems in iron and steelmaking, one problem of
which is sulphur.

Using their sulphur balance data in

addition to other references cited later. Figure 1.1 was

developed.

This figure illustrates a sulphur balance for an

integrated iron and steel plant, in which the coal prepara

tion^ plant is included.
Sulphur can be introduced into steel from numerous
raw materials, but the primary source is seen to be the coal
used to make metallurgical coke. This coke in turn fuels
the blast furnace where the iron ore is reduced and the
iron melted.

The hot metal from the blast furnace, con

taining various elemental impurities such as carbon,

silicon, and phosphorous as well as sulphur, is then
commonly refined in the Basic Oxygen Furnace CBOF).
1

BLAST FURNACE
METALLIC BURDEN
I.I %
BOF SCRAP CHARGE
AS-MINED COAL

< 0.8 %

90 7o

BOF FLUX
0.1 7o

COAL REFUSE 54.9 7

COKE OVEN '

BY
PRODUCTS 18.17e

BLAST
FURNACE
SLAG 24.77

MISC. BLAST
FURNACE 0.37o

Figure 1.1.

STEEL
1.5 7o
BOF SLAG 0.57o

Sulphur Balance for an Integrated Iron and

Steel Plant

Over the years, many researchers have studied

sulphur in order to improve methods for preventing its
presence in the finished steel.

Recently, much work has

been done on the removal of sulphur and ash from coal.

Additionally, there exists a good understanding of the
thermochemical behavior of sulphur in the blast furnace and
the BOF.

While no recent attention has been directed to

the disposition of sulphur compounds in the coking oven,

there is some earlier documentation on which mass balance
relationships can be based.
1.1

Definition of the Problem

The physical aspects of sulphur in the iron and

steel industry are thus relatively well known, yet the
economic choice of alternatives for desulphurizing has not
been addressed in the context of considering the full set
of processes as one coherent system.
Figure 1.2 s\immarizes the structure of the system
as it is defined for the present work. Five separate
stages are identified at which sulphur enters or leaves
the defined system.

By describing the physical and

economic behavior of sulphur at each stage in terms of

mathematical relationships, and by taking advantage of
the stage-by-stage or serial structure of the system, the
optimal means can be found for finishing with steel at a
prescribed maximum sulphur specification.

More importantly.

FEED COAL

COAL PREPARATION AND

SHIPPING

REFUSE

CLEAN COAL

BLEND
COAL

COKING

BY-PRODUCTS
COKE BREEZE

COKE
METALLIC
BURDEN,
STONE.
BLAST,
INJECTANTS

BLAST FURNACE
IRONMAKING

TOPGAS a FLUE DUST

SLAG

HOT METAL

EXTERNAL
DESULPHURIZATION

SLAG

HOT METAL
SCRAP
LIME
FLUX OXYGEN
ALLOYS

BOF

TOPGAS
SLAG

FINISHED STEEL
AT REQUIRED
SPECIFICATION

Figure 1.2.

System Structure Used in the Study

considering the system in its entirety overcomes the common

problem of "suboptimization" wherein one part of the system
may be optimized to the detriment of the whole.
1.2

Synopsis

The research program is documented in several

chapters.

Following this introduction. Chapter 2 details

the System's Analysis procedure culminating in the Dynamic

Programming approach to the mathematical optimization of
the system.
The following five chapters describe in order, the
mathematical models developed for (a) coal preparation and
shipping, (b) manufacture of metallurgical coke, (c) blast
furnace ironmaking, (d) desulphurization of hot metal
external to the blast furnace, and (e) refining of the steel
in the EOF.
Chapter 8 details the economic models used for each
of the five models, while Chapter 9 presents solutions to
numerous model runs and discussion on the salient charac
teristics of each.

Actual results are given in a tabular

form, depicting the optimal sequence through each of the

five stages under the described set of conditions.
Chapter 10 is then a summary of conclusions drawn
from the research, followed by the last chapter recommending
additional work which could be undertaken.

The appendices contain a detailed derivation of the

high temperature heat and material balance used in the
blast furnace model, as well as a listing of the data sets
and computer models constructed for each stage.

CHAPTER 2
SYSTEMS APPROACH TO PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
The last twenty years have seen the development and
widespread application of formal techniques of Systems
Analysis.

This approach to decision-making involves the use

of applied mathematics in conjunction with scientific

knowledge of the field under study, so that the complex
interactions of variables may be examined in an organized
and efficient manner.

The fundamental concept of Systems

Analysis is that physical systems obey both natural laws

(e.g., conservation of mass and the laws of thermodynamics)
and, to a limited extent, economic laws.

Thus, by mathe

matical description of the system's physical and economic

behavior and by development of an appropriate solution
method, optimal economic solutions and the variables
critical to profitable operation can be identified.
2.1

Literature Survey: Optimization in

Process Metallurgy

The literature of Operations Research is replete

with examples of solutions to practical problems.
Researchers in the chemical engineering field have been
particularly active with numerous published works serving
as examples for solution of metallurgical plant-design
7

problems.

Rudd and Watson (2) authored an excellent book on

the application of the common techniques to the process

industries.

Aris, Nemhauser, and Wilde (3) and Lee (4)

presented theoretical discussions on multistage and cyclic

systems such as the one in the present study.

In the field

of metallurgy, the book by Ray and Szekely (5) offers

examples and theoretical discussions on the techniques which
have application to process metallurgy.
In metallurgy, as in all other areas, the most
popular means for optimization is Linear Programming.

In

early works Fabian (6) and Tsao and Day (7) applied the
algorithm to material allocation in integrated steel plants.
Wrathall (8) exhibited the usefulness of Linear Programming
in solving for optimal blast furnace burdening practice, and
it was applied to least-cost material selection for the .
electric furnace by Hilty and Kaveney (9) and for the iron
foundry by DeGarmo, Greese, and Rao (10, 11).

More recently

Tarkoff, Fekete, and Gray (12) used Linear Programming in

the optimal allocation of energy supplies for a large steel
\

plant, while Russell and Vaughn (13) applied it to the

problem of minimizing steel plant effluent discharges.
As its name implies. Linear Programming makes use
of linear equations to describe the system under study, but
this requirement can also limit its usefulness.
and refining operations often exhibit asymptotic

Smelting

concentration changes or other nonlinear behavior which

cannot be approximated properly by linear equations.
Dynamic Programming, first introduced by Bellman in
1957, can circumvent this difficulty effectively.
Metallurgy has far fewer examples of the application of
this technique.

Calanog and Geiger (14) showed the

usefulness of Dynamic Programming in a study that modeled

stainless steel production in the electric arc furnace as
a four-stage process.

Bayko (15) used Dynamic Programming

on the problem of identifying the optimal rolling scheme

for a reversing hot strip mill.
Numerous excellent texts are available describing
the Dynamic Programming concept.

Bellman's (16) Dynamic

Programming was the first definitive work on the subject.

Later Bellman and Dreyfus (17) added to the literature on
the application of the method.

One of the more readable

books on the subject is that of Nemhauser (18).

Perhaps the main reason that examples of Dynamic
Programming are not found more frequently in the literature
is that a unique approach is required to each problem.

The

method does not enjoy a powerful and efficient algorithm

for solution as is found, for example, in the Simplex
algorithm for Linear Programming.

Moreover, this lack of

an efficient solution procedure limits severely the size of

problems that can be contemplated, even with modern
computers.

10

Applications in metallurgy of other optimization

techniques such as Geometric Programming and Gradient Search
also are scant.

Geometric Programming by Duffin, Peterson,

and Zener (19) does offer several examples using the tech
nique in similar fields.

In their book Ray and Szekely (5)

used Geometric Programming i-n finding the operation that

maximized profit for a furnace in which a slag-metal
reaction is occurring.

Dittman (20) used Gradient Search

in seeking minimum solutions for operating costs in the

BOF, while Sanders and Svoboda (21) employed the technique
in planning experimental procedures.
As in the present study, finding an optimal solu
tion is the usual goal for systems in which a single
objective function is pursued by techniques such as those
mentioned above.

It must be recognized that there exists

the more general case of multiple objectives as, for

example, full resource utilization at lowest cost with
minimum environmental impact.

Here often the best that

may be realized is a so-called "satisficing" solution.

Very little activity has been noted in application of
multiple-objective decision making in the metallurgical
field, but several references are available in other areas
whicn serve as guides to application.

Roy (22) and

MacCrimmon (23) presented excellent reviews of the various

available approaches.

Benayoun et al. (24) demonstrated the

application of Linear Programming to the use of

11

multiple-objective functions.

Duckstein, Monarchi, and

Kisiel (25) presented the SEMOPS algorithm which uses

nonlinear programming formulation to find levels of goal
realization while incorporating sensitivity analysis to
address the uncertainties in the problem.
2.2

Systems Analysis of the Present Problem

The system under study can be divided or decomposed

into a number of discrete stages linked together with
products being fed forward successively and with minimum
recycle backward.

In this situation, both Dynamic Pro

gramming and a multi-divisional or coupled Linear Pro

gramming (26) were identified as feasible means to optimize
the system.
Because of the many important nonlinearities in the
system, the discrete form of Dynamic Programming was chosen
to incorporate the five submodels into a coherent overall
system.

At the same time, a form of Linear Programming is

used to achieve optimization in the submodel describing the

coal preparation stage.
The objective function is defined as: minimization
of costs (or, conversely, maximization of accrued benefits)
relative to a baseline case that is defined so as to cor
respond to typical current industrial practice.

External

desulphurization is not included in the baseline case

because it is not presently in widespread use.

12

Definition of a baseline case allows the optimiza

tion to proceed by consideration of relative comprehensive
These relative costs were defined by Worthington

costs.

(27) as pertaining only to those items which are not common

to each operational alternative.

This simply means that

some arbitrary constant may be added to each possible case

and the optimal solution will not change, nor will the
return from one alternative processing route relative to
another.

Thus, by considering these relative costs, the

additional expense for installation and operation of a

process that is not originally in the standard defined case
must be more than offset by savings before it is included in
any optimal solution.
2.3

Discrete Deterministic Dynamic Programming

The discrete deterministic multistage decision model

used in the present study can be treated in an analytical
way by as turning a process with the elements (N,

D, T,

R, Q).
1.

N is a positive integer indicating the total number

of decision stages involved in the decision making
process.

The various decision stages are denoted

by n, 1 n _< N.

In the present case N = 5 where

the stages are obvious.

For convenience they are

numbered, n = 1, starting at the end, which in this

case is the BOF immediately preceding the final

13

steel product.

Stage 2 then is the external de-

sulphurization step.

This is considered as a

distinct stage, even though it may be essentially

bypassed in the problem solution if the "do-nothing"
decision variable is determined to be optimal for
this stage.

Following in order, stage 3 is the

blast furnace, and stage 4 corresponds to the coking

process.

Finally, stage 5 is the first chronological

step in the entire processthe coal preparation

stage.
n is a finite set of elements, x, called states.
The elements x are used for the description of the
state of the process at the different decision
stages.

As a general example this could mean that

the material entering a certain stage may be in the

state such that it has a low sulphur content, or in
another state such that the sulphur content is high.
The input state to stage n is assigned the symbol x^^.
D = {Dn l_<n_<N is a set of feasible decisions,
' d n,
available at the nth decision stage when the state
x^ is observed.

In addition, the parameter, t,

t ^^n^l<n<N'

sequence of transition

laws which describe the output state,

result of the decision variable d^ operating on the

input state, x^; i.e.,

To be specific, consider stage 3 which is the

blast furnace.

For purposes of this study it is

assumed that the input state vector to this stage

is defined if the sulphur and ash content of the
coke, its stability, and the weight of coke per ton
of steel are known quantities.

Similarly, there

are three decision variables over which the

decision maker has control: the slag basicity, the
windrate (SCF/NTHM), and the blast temperature.

It

is recognized of course that in actual practice the

decision maker has a large number of alternatives
over which some control may be exercised.

However,

due to limitations on computer implementation of

the problem, only three may be considered and the
remaining variables must be set at constant pre
defined values.

At some arbitrary intersection of

the input vector and the decision vector, statement

3 requires that the output state of the material
leaving this stage be definable.

If the coke

sulphur, ash, stability, and weight are known and

if the basicity, windrate, and blast temperature are
set, then the output hot metal sulphur, silicon,
temperature, and weight also are known quantities
since they can be computed directly.
R is the real-valued function, called the reward
function or the stage return, defined for each

combination.

This function quantifies the

predicted economic return resulting from the

combination under consideration: r = r (x ,d ).
n.
n n n
Given the current state, the optimal policy for
the remaining stages is independent of the policies
utilized in the previous stages.

This memoryless

or "Markovian" property of the system is the key

concept on which Dynamic Programming is based.
Again considering the blast furnace, once the
output state of this stage is defined, then the
previous history of the material is indeterminate.
Knowing only the hot metal temperature and its
sulphur and silicon contents, one is unable to say
just what combination of blast furnace input and
decision variables resulted in this output.
The solution begins by finding the. optimal policy
for the last stage, n = 1, and working backward to
the start, n = 5, using a recursive relationship to
identify the optimal policy for each preceding
stage.

As the output state of the final steel

product is a known defined vector, then identifying

the optimal combination of decisions in the BOF is
a degenerate case of this statement; there is only
one means to get from a given input state to the
defined output state.

In fact, in some cases it

may not be possible to meet the finished steel

specifications from a given input vector, in which

case an infeasible solution has been encountered.
The real decision comes when two stages, external
desulphurization and the BOF, are combined.

Now considera

tion must be given to the many ways in which each of the

input states to the external desulphurization can be con
verted through stage 2 to an output state, which in turn is
an input state to stage 1.

The recursive relationship is

defined:
R(x,d,) + min Q,(x,,d-)
2
2
2
^ y 1 1 1
When this operation is completed for each of the
stage 2 input states, the next step backward is included
and the cumulative process is repeated.

In general:

for n = 1

+ min Q,
n = 2, 3, ... N
Upon completion of this algorithm for all states, the
value with the minimum overall cost is found and the path
which describes this optimum sequence is chosen as the best
scheme.
Figure 2.1 shows the computer algorithm used for
solution of the discrete Dynamic Programming problem.

17

n = STAGE NUMBER
CALL FROM TAPE
THE REQUIRED TABLES

k = NUMBER OF VALUES OF X- INPUT VECTOR

j = NUMBER OF VALUES OF d DECISION VECTOR
READ:

YES

NO

Qnt*n = '''''n=j' =fn<''n =Mn = i) +Qj.|(Vl>

WHERE x.,

=t(x

=k,d =])

FIND MIN OVER LINE, Xp = k :

Q " ( x = k ) = M I N [ Q ( x = k . d = j ) , Q ( x = k ) ]
d* = dn(xn= k)

NO
YES

SAVE MIN OVER LINE AS

YESj
NO

SAVE d* (x) FOR TRACING

YES

=Nr

OPTFMAL ROUTE
SAVE X* (xp) FOR TRACING
OPTIMAL ROUTE

= n-

YES
PROBLEM
DONE
PRINT Q
AND d'

Figure 2.1.

PRINT x?

AND d

Flowchart for D3niainic Programming Algorithm

18

Table 2.1 defines the input and decision variables

for each stage in the present study.

For convenience each

variable was assigned a letter from A to V to facilitate

data input.
Figure 2.2 illustrates the five-stage structure of
the present problem.

Dimensioned sizes of the stage-return

and transformation tables for each stage are shown below

each block.
In running the stage models, the possible values
which the output variables can assume must match the
expected ranges over any combination of input and decision
variable vectors.

Due to computer memory limitations, the

product of the number of possible values for variables

considered together as one axis (e.g., E, F, and G or
H, I, J, and K) must be less than 350 in the present case.
The.variable of most interest (e.g., coke sulphur) is
assigned more possible values for enhanced resolution, but
at the expense of the resolution for the others.
A trial and error approach is therefore required
in defining values of variables before a complete run is
made.

Each model should be run by itself v/ith selected

input and decision variables and estimated output values.

The possible values can then be determined to allow accurate
state variable transition from one stage to the next.

Table 2.1.

Stage

Input and Decision Variables to the Five Stages

Fixed
Variables

Input State
Variables

Decision
Variables

Output State
Variables

5. Coal
preparation

Coal washability and

flotation
response

(A) None
All input state
properties are
fixed

Coal washing
option i
operating on
size fraction
j and sp. gr.
of separation
for each i
(optimal choice
determined by
Linear Pro
gramming)

4. Coking

% blend coal
and composi
tion

(B)

(E) Flue temp.

(H) Coke total
(F)
sulphur
(F) Charge coal (I) Coke ash
moisture
(J) Coke sta
(G) Pulveriza
bility
(K) Coke weight
tion level
(%-l/8") of
per ton of
charge coal
steel

(C)
(D)

Clean coal
moisture
3. Blast
furnace

Size consist,
weight/NTHM and
compositions
for metallic
burden and
stone
Composition of
coke ash
Furnace carbon
constant

(H)

(L) Basicity of
slag

(I)
(J)
(K)

(M) Windrate
(SCF/NTHM)
(N) Blast tem
perature (K)

(B) Clean coal

total sulphur
(C) Clean coal
total ash
(D) Clean coal
weight per ton
of steel

(0) Hot metal

weight/ton
steel
(P) Hot metal
sulphur
(Q) Hot metal
silicon
(R) Hot metal
runner temperature

Table 2.1.Continued

Stage

Fixed
Variables

Input State
Variables

Decision
Variables

Output State
Variables

Blast composi
tion and
moisture
content
2. External
desulphurization

Standard temp.
drop of hot
metal from
runner to EOF

(0)
(P)
(Q)
(R)

18 variables;
1) do nothing
2) 1-plunge
magcoke
3) 2-plunge
magcoke
4-8) CaC2 in
jection
9-13) CaCo-KR
stir
14-18) CaO in
jection

1. EOF

Heat loss
Furnace size
Scrap composi
tion
Etc.

(S)
(T)

Only one combi None

Output state of
nation of
finished steel
operating var
iables in the
is fixed befor<
EOF allows the
model run
realization of
the required
output state
given the S-TU-V input state

(U)
(V)

(S) Hot metal

weight/ton
steel
(T) Hot metal
sulphur after
desulphurization
(U) Hot metal
silicon after
desulphurization
(V) Hot metal
temperature as
charged to EOF

SYSTEM STRUCTURE

13 OPTIONS

(E) FLUTHP
(P) COLH20
(G) PUtV

(B) COALS
(C) COLASH
(D) COLHT

(L) B-RATIO
{M) SCF/NTHH
(N) BLTK
(H)
f^(I)
(J)
(K)

COKES
COKASH
STBL
COKHT

BLAST
FCE

la
DECISION
VARIABLES

(OJ
(P)
(Q)
(R)

HHWT
HHS
HMSl
HHT

EXT
DES

(S)
(T)
(U)
(VJ

HMWT
___
HMS -JboFI
HMSl
*
r-*
HMT

RESULTING SIZES OF
RETURN AND TRANSFORMATION TABLES

BCD

EFG ^

Figure 2.2,

LMN

><

18

HIJK

OPQR

STUV

System Structure and Sizes of Return and Transformation Tables

N)

CHAPTER 3
METALLURGICAL COKING COAL AND ITS PREPARATION
Historically the total energy requirement pei: ton of
steel dropped from 27 x 10^ BTU/ton in 1958 to approximately
g

23 X 10

in the early 1970's.

During that time, however,

the proportion contributed directly or indirectly by coal

remained roughly constant at 70 to 73%.

Without question,

coal is one of the main cornerstones on which the iron and

steel industry depends.
Today's coking coals typically are blends of high-,
medium-, and low-volatile bituminous coals that will yield
the requisite properties of low sulphur, low ash, low coking
pressure, and high coke strength.

The main focus of the

following discussion of the coal preparation submodel will

be the economic upgrading of run-of-mine metallurgical
coking coal.
3.1
3.1.1

Coal Composition and Its Quantification

Sulphur in Coal
Sulphur is considered to be present in coal in

three forms: organic, sulphate, and pyritic.

Since the

organic sulphur is an integral component of the chemical

structure of coal, it defines the lowest theoretical limit
22

23

to which coal can be cleaned physically.

Total sulphur

contents in bituminous coals vary widely, but in coking

coals they usually are limited by definition to less than
2.1%.

Yancey and Geer (in 28) tabulated analyses from over

20 midwestern coals showing that total sulphur ranged from

0.55 to 4.95%.

As a per cent of the total sulphur, organic

sulfur was from 20 to 84%, with a mean of 51% (1).'

Given and Wyss (29) stated that organic sulphur is
likely found in one of five forms;
1.

Mercaptan or thiol (RSH).

2.

Sulphide or thio-ether (RSR').

3.

Disulphide (RSSR*)

4.

Aromatic systems containing the thiophene ring.

5.

Delta thiopyrone system.

In an early reference, Gollmar (in 30) indicated

that coke oven gas contains sulphur in the form of hydrogen

sulphide, carbon disulphide, carbon oxysulphide, and
mercaptans.

Equilibrium was found to exist between H2S

and various hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, acetylene,

and ethylene; but the actual organic compounds from which
the sulphur-bearing gases were derived were not given in
this reference.
Sulphate sulphur is conventionally defined as that
which can be extracted by treatment with hydrochloric acid.

24

Typically this is of minor importance, with domestic coals

having less than 0.10% sulphate sulphur.
Pyritic sulphur is considered to exist in both of
the crystallographic habits of FeS2: pyrite and marcasite.
Inclusions of this pyritic sulphur are present in coal in
two general forms: macroscopic and microscopic.

Macroscopic

pyrite can be subdivided into (a) thin veins along vertical

joints; (b) horizontal elongated "lenses"; (c) nodules of
pyrite with calcite, siderite, or clay; and (d) pyritized
plant tissue.

Microscopic pyrite occurs as finely-

disseminated crystals and globules.

Kremp (31) hypothesized

that the vertical variation of pyritic sulphur, normally

found in eastern bituminous coal beds, was derived from the
syngenetic deposition of sulphur on the topmost coal layers
from overlying marine sediments.
Generally speaking, the pyrite with a specific
gravity from 4.89 to 5.03 will be found in the heavy size
fractions of a washability test, provided the coal is ground
sufficiently to liberate pyrite from the lighter coal.

In

Chapter 1 of reference 28 it was stated that "pure" coal

constituents have specific gravities ranging from 1.23 to
1.72.

It should be noted also that removal of the high-

specific gravity fractions will cause an apparent increase

in the relative amount of organic sulphur in the clean coal,
due to retention of the coal portion containing this
sulphur as a structural component.

25

3.1.2

Ash in Coal
Ash is derived from the occurrence of various

minerals which are predominantly silicates of sodium,

potassium, calcium, aluminum, magnesium, and iron.

Follow

ing in approximate order of occurrence, are the kaolin clay

group, sulphides (e.g., FeS2), carbonates, chlorides, and
minor amounts of quartz and other minerals.

Table 3.1

presents analyses of the ash from bituminous coals, showing

oxides present and their range of composition C28).

These

oxides report to the slag in the blast furnace and must be

considered in burdening calculations.

Table 3.1.

Ash Analyses from Bituminous Coals

Oxide
Si02

Range of
Composition
20-60%
10-35%

^^2^3
CaO

5-35
1-20

MgO

0.3-4

Ti02

0,5-2.5

Na20, K2O
(alkalis)
SO3

1-4
0.1-12

26

As noted in reference 28, Nicholls and Selvig (32)

determined the disposition of ash-forming constituents when
washing certain midwestern coals at 1.35 specific gravity.
Interestingly, only the iron-, calcium-, and sulphur-oxide
ashes were higher in the sink fraction than in the float
fraction.

The alkalis, which present special problems in

blast furnace operation, were divided roughly evenly, or

were slightly more prevalent in the float fraction for the
coals that were studied.
In a manner analogous to the behavior of sulphur
discussed above, ash-forming constituents can exist either
segregated within the coal or finely di"vided and structurally
intermingled in it, with the inseparable fraction again a
lower limit to which coal can be cleaned.

Theoretically, but

not practically, the coal can be ground to a size suffi

ciently fine to effect complete separation.
3.1.3

Coal Analysis
Composition of coals is routinely quantified by the

"proximate" analysis which reports moisture, volatile matter,

ash, and fixed carbon.

Sulphur analyses also aire commonly

made, but the other elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen., and

nitrogen), of the "ultimate" analysis are determined infre
quently.
In coal washing, the standard washability curve is a
requisite tool used to determine the bept specific gravity

27

for plant operation and to yield some indication of the

difficulty of separation.

In Chapter 4 of reference (28)

Shapiro and Clendenin describe the preparation of such a

curve.

This consists basically of separating the finely

divided coal sample into weight fractions according to

specific gravity and then drying, weighing, and analyzing
each fraction for ash and sulphur.

Usually the lowest

specific gravity liquid used is 1.30, and the float fraction

is then assigned a specific gravity 0.02 lower than this
liquid.

The range in specific gravity from 1.3 to 1.9 is

divided into increments of 0.05 or 0.10 and fractionation

is done over this range.

Each fraction is arbitrarily

assigned the specific gravity of the mean of the two

gravities which bracket it.

The sink material in the case

of the heaviest liquid used is assigned a value 0.30 heavier

than the liquid; 2.2 in this case.

To construct the curves

a table is made showing the weight per cent, ash per cent,
and sulphur per cent in each fraction; the numbers are con
verted to a cumulative weight per cent basis, and the
resulting values are plotted versus specific gravity.
Washability curves for the coals used in the present study
are shown in the Results chapter.

Refer to reference (20)

for the procedure to determine the Per Cent within 0.10

Specific Gravity.

28

32

Metallurgical Coal Washing Model

The coal washing model that has been developed uses

data from such tests mentioned above for the coal under
study, to identify the optimal means for preparation.

For

purposes of this work, the entire size range of the coal is

divided into four size fractions listed in Table 3.2.

This

table also lists the processes that are appropriate options

for the given size fractions (33, 34).

During the model

run, any combination of up to 12 of these options can be

considered for the optimal solution.

These methods repre

sent over 90% of the tonnage cleaned in 1965 (28).

Table 3.2.

Coal Size Fractions Considered, Appropriate

Washing Methods, and Convention Observed in
Niimbering Options in This Study

"Z" Si^e
35 Mesh to
100 Mesh
Two-stage
Hydrocyclone
(Option 1)
Table (Option
2)
Spiral (Option
3)
Flotation
(Option 11)

"M" Size
+35m-1/4"
Baum Jig
(Option 4)
Dense Media
Cyclone
(Option 5)
Two-stage
Hydrocyclone
(Option 6)

"L" Size
+1/4"
Dense Media
Vessel
(Option 8)
Baum Jig
(Option 9)
Dense Media
Cyclone
(Option 10)
Chance Cone
Two-stage
Hydrocyclone

"S" Size
-100m

Flotation
(Option 12)
Discard
(Option 13)

29

All methods, except flotation, rely on separation of

the material due to specific gravity differences.

Shale,

clays, sandstone, and pyrite (which are the ash-forming

constituents of run-of-mine coal) have specific gravities
greater than 2.5.

Carbonaceous shale and intergrown "bone"

coal have specific gravities intermediate to "pure" coal

and the pure mineral.
3.2.1

Assumptions
Several assumptions are necessary in order to

derive equations representing the coal washing system:

1.

The feed coal with a known size and specific gravity

distribution enters the plant where perfect size
splits are assumed.

2.

Within the plant, negligible size degradation is

assumed to occur.

3.

The ash and pyritic sulphur components are assumed

to report to the clean or refuse products in the
same proportion as does the coal from the same
specific gravity range.

4.

When appropriate data are lacking, it may be assumed

that for any given specific gravity fraction the
weight per cent of pyritic sulphur is the same for
each of the four size fractions.

This means for

example, that the pyritic sulphur will not be more

prevalent in the fine size fraction than in the

30

coarser fractions.

This same assumption may be made

with respect to the various types of ash.

United

States Bureau of Mines data (35) tend to substan

tiate this assumption.
3.2.2 Development of Characteristic Curves
for Coal Washing Alternatives
It is well known that the characteristics of
industrial washing installations do not approach the ideal
case of washability tests performed in the laboratory.

The

following section will deal with (a) the development of

"characteristic curves" which define the performance of the
various unit operations relative to an ideal curve, (b) an
algorithm which is developed to determine the specific
gravity of separation for a given coal in a given process,
and (c) how these are combined to determine coefficients for
the linear programming algorithm which identifies the
optimal system.
In an ideal case one would expect that, if a coal
is crushed and then washed in a liquid at a specific gravity
of 1.45 for example, the portion having a specific gravity
lower than 1.45 would report to the float and the portion
heavier would sink.

Under the dynamics of industrial

washing, however, some misplacement of material occurs.

In

Chapter 18 of reference (28), Greer and Yancey describe the

characteristic curve which has been developed to quantify

31

this effect.

The use of an entire curve leads to a great

deal more accuracy than simple single-valued indices of

separation sharpness such as efficiency, error area, or
ash and yield errors.
Figures 3.1 through 3.7 show characteristic curves
for all the unit operations listed earlier.

Note that some

operations can be used for more than one of the arbitrary

size fractions, and that separation performance deteriorates
as the feed size diminishes.

The curves were empirically

fit to data published by numerous workers.

Source data are

referenced in the list of references.

On each diagram is listed the range of specific
gravity from which the data were taken.

Over a fairly wide

range, the characteristic curve has been found to be rela

tively insensitive to specific gravity.

A characteristic

curve, however, is sensitive to feed size as the curves

indicate, and it can deteriorate if the unit is out of
adjustment or overloaded.
Characteristic curves conventionally are plotted as
shown, with "recovery to clean product" on the vertical
axis versus "difference from specific gravity of separation"
on the horizontal.

At a value of 0.0 on the horizontal

axis, by definition one-half of the feed goes to float and

one-half to sink.
To use the characteristic curve to find coal yield,
one must know the washability curve for the coal in question

32

(L) (- 1/4' (1.4-1 09 Sp (k.)

S5M 4100m (l.4*2.2 Sp.Gr.)

(20% MAX WITKiN
+ / - O.W)
{M)-|/4'499U (I.39-I.9SP&.)

I20%UJ0(

unTHIN f/-0.t0)

-040

Figure 3.1.

-030

-0.20

-o.to

000

0.10

0.20

0.90

OtrrERENCC mou SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SCPAAATKM

Characteristic Curves for Two-Stage Hydrocyclones References (28, p. 10-31), (35),

(36, pp. 112, 113), (37), (38).

I/4'(I 4- 1.69 Sp Cr.)

(10 % MAX WITHIN 4/-O.I0}

21- 39M--IOOm (I 4-1.9 5p Cf.)

(K)% MAX VOTHIN 4/-0 K))

(M)-|/4'+S9M (1.35-1 69 SpCr.J

<(0%MAX W)THIN 4-/-0 10)

O.20
-O.fO
0,00
0 K>
0 20
0 30
OIFTEREMCC FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEPARATION

Figure 3.2.

Characteristic Curves for Tabling - References

C28, pp. 10-52, 18-15) (36, pp, 112, 113).

SPIRAL

CLASSIFIER

.tZ)-35M +IOOM tl.4 -1.9 Sp.Gr.)

i
(10% MAX WITHIN

+/-0.10)

0
-0.10

Figure 3.3.

'
-0.30

'

'

i_

-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
O.ZO
0.30
DIFFERENCE FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEPARATION

0.40

Characteristic Curve for Spiral Classifier

Reference: C39).

BAUM JIG

100
90

(L+l/4" {1.4-(.65 Sp. Gr.)

>
< B % MAX WITHIN +/- 0.10)

80
70

60

I
-I

O
H
111

50
(M)-l/4" +35M (1.4-1.8 Sp.Gr.)
I
(8% MAX WITHIN

40

+/- 0.10)

30

aUJ 20

-0.40 -0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

DIFFERENCE FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEPARATION

Figure 3.4.

Characteristic Curves for Jigs References

C28, pp. 10-61, 18-10, 18-18) (36, p. 111).

34

DENSE MEDIA CrCLONES

to+1/4" (t.4-l.63Sp.Gr.)
140% MAX WITHIN V-O.IO)

[/4*

+ 35

(1.39-1.80 Sp.Cr.)
140% MAX WITHIN

4/-O.IOJ

0.20

0.10

DIFFERENCE FROM

Figure 3.5.

0.00

010

0.20

SPEOFIC GRAVrTY SEPARATION

030

Of

Characteristic Curves for Dense Media Cyclones

References: C28, p. 10-14), 36, p. 113),
(38), (40).

DENSE MEOtA VESSEL

100
90

;(L)+l (1.35-163

70

/4'

(80%

60

Sp.Cf.l
WITHIN V- 0.10)

o SO

I"
^ 30

ui

20

-0.40

-030

-0.20

-O.K)

0.00

.K)

0.20

OJO

0.40

DIFFERENCE FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEPARATKM

Figure 3.6.

Characteristic Curve for Dense Media Vessel

References: (28, pp. 9-36, 18-13) t38).

CHANCE CONES

(L)+l/4" (1.35-1.65 Sp.Gr.)

(15% MAX WITHIN +/-0.I0)

o 70

? 60

(T 30

P 20

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

DIFFERENCE FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEPARATION

Figure 3.7.

Characteristic Curve for Chance Cone Reference: (28)

OJ
U1

and determine a specific gravity at which separation should

occur.

This will be the "specific gravity of separation,"

and in most cases it is not equal to the actual specific

gravity of the fluid being used.
As an example, let the specific gravity of separa
tion be 1.45 for a coal between 1/4" and 35 mesh.

Ideally,

all material lighter would go to float and vice versa; but

with a table, a certain amount less than 100% of the light
fraction will do so.

Considering the fraction of material

floated at 1.30 in the washability test (assigned a

specific gravity of 1.28), one must first find the differ
ence in specific gravity (1.28 - 1.45 = -0.17).

Using the

curve for the -1/4" to 35-mesh material, it can be found

that only 96% of that fraction reports to float.

The other

4% apparently was entrained and lost with the sink product.

Having done this, it is a simple matter to make a
similar calculation for each of the other specific gravity
fractions ascertained in the laboratory washability test.
By multiplying the recovery and the direct weight per cent
within each specific gravity fraction, and then by summing
all these products, a yield for the option under considera
tion can be found.
Furthermore, if the assumptions stated earlier are
made, then final ash and sulphur contents of the clean
product and the refuse can be determined in a similar manner.
Here, for each specific gravity fraction, the above product

37

of recovery and direct weight per cent is in turn multiplied

by the direct weight per cent ash or pyritic sulphur; these
products are summed and then divided by product yield to
result in ash or pyritic sulphur contents in the clean
fraction.
The remaining problem is to decide on the specific
gravity of separation for each unit operation.

The algorithm

in Table 3.3 is employed to converge to the specific gravity

for each process.

Table 3.3.

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

Algorithm to Determine Specific Gravity of

Separation

Perform washability test on suitable sample of coal and

generate both the "ideal yield curve" and the "per cent
of feed within 0.10 specific gravity" as functions of
specific gravity.
Choose the specific gravity to wash as that at 10%
within 0.10 specific gravity.
Using this specific gravity of separation, determine the
actual yield, pyritic sulphur, organic sulphur, and ash
values as detailed above, using the characteristic curve.
On subsequent steps through algorithm, check that "per
cent within 0.10" is inside acceptable limits; e.g., for
satisfactory performance the coal feed to a hydrocyclone
should have less than 8% near-gravity material. If not>
set to limit and stop. Otherwise, continue.
Check that specific gravity of separation is within
applicable limits; e.g., the table cannot be operated
below about 1.4 or above approximately 2.0 specific
gravity of separation. If not, set to appropriate limit
and stop. Otherwise, continue.
If the clean coal parameter of interestfor example,
pyritic sulphuris not within the specified tolerance on
either side of its aim point, then increment the
specific gravity in the correct direction and return to
Step 3. Otherwise, stop.

3.2.3

Flotation
Yield and composition of clean or refuse products

from coal flotation plants are predicted in a somewhat

different manner than for coal washing which is done on the
basis of specific gravity differences.

Generally it has

been found that an approximate linear function starting at

the origin exists between the cumulative coal yield and
cumulative recoveries of either pyritic sulphur or ash.
Some researchers (41) have attempted to predict
floatability of coal on the basis of surface concentrations
of floatable and non-floatable constituents.

Unfortunately,

accurate analyses of surface constituents and the extent of

surface oxidation seldom are known.

It is then very diffi

cult to adequately predict float and refuse compositions

without pilot scale tests.
In the present case, trial data are required as
input in order to define clean coal ash and pyritic sulphur
as functions of coal yield.

The coal washing algorithm

simply calculates ash and pyritic sulphur recoveries in

the clean coal product at a given coal yield and under a
given set of operating conditions.

These are then converted

to appropriate coefficients for the linear programming

matrix which is described next.

39

3.2,4 Mixed Integer Linear Programming

Approach
Linear programming has the standard form:
Max Z = E C. X.
j ^ ^
subject to Sa.X. < b. and X. > 0
3 3 -

3 -

The decision variable, X tons per day, will be subscripted

with three symbols which identify, in order: the process for
cleaning, the size range of the feed to the process, and the
disposition that is made of the material, i.e., either to
the clean or refuse fractions.

For example, X^^^^ will

represent the tons per day of coal cleaned on tables (T),

from the middle size range (M, -1/4" + 35 mesh), and sent
to the clean fraction (C).

The sum of Xrn

TMC and X^^,
TMR will
be the total tons of medium-sized material fed to the table.

In similar manner, the sum of all the variables which end

in "C" will be the tons per day of clean product.

Note

that this model operates under steady-state conditions.

The objective is to minimize overall daily costs.
Each process which could feasibly handle tonnage from one
of the size fractions (see Table 3.2) is given a decision
variable, but to discourage the model from assigning a small
amount to each feasible process, an extension to Linear
Programming must be made.

This is termed mixed integer-

linear programming, and it allows the consideration of not

only the operating costs, which are assumed to be directly

40

proportional to production, but also the daily capitaldepreciation charge which will be present whether a ton is
cleaned by the process or not.

This modification will tend

to force all the material from a given size range through

the one process which has the lowest sum of daily operating
and fixed capital costs.

An IBM algorithm described in

Kuester and Mize (42) was adapted for solution of the

problem.
The decision variable for the integer portion of
the model will be depicted by the symbol Y with two sub
scripts representing, respectively, the process for cleaning
and the size range of the feed.

The Y variables are

restricted to the integer values of either 0 or 1, where 1

connotes the existence of the given process in the optimal
solution and 0 means the opposite.

A modified Big-M

technique as described in Hillier and Lieberman (26),

forces the value of

to be 1 when any tonnage in the j

size fraction is called for processing by option i (i.e.,

when

is non-zero).

The daily capital depreciation

charge is present as the coefficient of the Y^j variable in

the objective function row, so that the capital charge is
summed into the objective function value when Y^j takes
the value of 1.
This daily fixed depreciation charge is determined
by estimating the capital cost for each of the various
alternatives.

Only the primary and auxiliary equipment and

41

construction costs for the items not common to each process

are considered; these are termed "relative costs."

In this

way a charge for a building is typically not made because a

building must be present regardless of the operation chosen.
The same can be said for crushers for the plus 1/4"
product, or the filters and dryers for the fine sizes.
In addition to the daily depreciation charge for
coal washing, the operating costs which are assumed
directly proportional to production level must be considered.
These costs are added to the objective function as coeffi
cients to the continuous decision variables x . a n d x.
13C
13R
for the ith process operating on coal from the jth size
fraction.
As in the capital cost estimate, only those operat
ing costs which are directly related to an operational
alternative are considered.

The chapter on costs cqntains

a more detailed treatment of both types of costs considered

here.
An example linear programming matrix corresponding
to the simplified system depicted in Figure 3.8 is shown in
Figure 3.9.
and 42 rows.

The full-sized matrix consists of 40 columns

Of the 40 columns, 39 are required due to the

3 columns for each of the 13 coal washing options.

The

40th column is used for the right-hand side of all

constraints.

The 42 rows are divided into several groups.

The first row is the objective function, while the second

42

RUN OF
MINE COAL

(I

-"ROCK

IN
- 1/4 + 35m

M SIZE

7
f
^TMC ^TMR ^JMC ^JMR

Figure 3.8.

SIZE

2 STAGE
HYDROCYCLONE

TABLE

CLEAN COAL
PRODUCT

35m + 100m

^WZC '^WZR

FLOTATION

^FZC '^FZR

REFUSE

Example Coal Preparation System

TABLE OPTION
M-SIZE

OBJECTIVE
FUNCTION

Z=

OIG OPTION
M-SIZE

^TM

^TMC

^TMR

^^TM

^TMC

^TMR

''^JM

2 STAGE HYDROCYCLONE
Z-SIZE

FLOTATION OPTION
Z-SIZE

^JMC

^JMR

"^WZ

^WZC

^WZR

"^FZ

^FZC

^FZR

^JMC

^JMR

CYwz

C^ZC

^WZR

^Vz

*'FZC

^FZR

TONNAGE
REQUIRED T|y^, ^

MAX SULPHUR
S
T

MAX MIN

^TMC

SjMC

Swzc

Sfzc

^max''"min"~

TMC

^JMC

^wzc

^FZC

'^MAx''^MIN -

'^TMC

'^JMC

'^wzc

^FZC

^MIN^MIN ^

'^TMC

'^JMC

'^wzc

'^fzc

MIN SULPHUR

ASH

YIELD
0=

(Yield^y-I) YleldT^

(Yieldji^-I) YIeldjy

0=
ETC.
BIG M
CONSTRAINTS
0 S:

-M

0 s

-M

ETC.
SIZE CONSTRAINTS
0=

WT^

WTz

WTj,

WT^

-WT

-WT^,

-WTM

-WT^,

INITIAL FEASIBLE
CONSTRAINTS
I ^
1^

Figure 3,9.

1
1

Mixed Integer Linear Programming Matrix for Simplified Example

of Figure 3.8

4>
LO

44

corresponds to the minimum daily tonnage requirement

constraint.

Rows 3 and 4 are the minimum and maximum

sulphur level constraints, while rows 5 and 6 are the

minimum and maximum ash level constraints.

Rows 17 through

19 represent the equality constraints which set the calcu

lated yield relationships between the clean and refuse
products for each option.

The 13 equations in rows 20

through 32 act to constrain the integer decision variables

to be positive if their corresponding tonnage decision
variables are positive.

Constraints 33 through 38 are the

six equations which relate the four size fractions one to

another.

Finally, the four constraints in rows 39 through

42 assist in developing an initial feasible solution to the

integer program by requiring at least one of the integer
variables for any given size range to be non-zero.
The computer logic for the coal preparation model
is shown in Figure 3.10.

The first step is the reading of

data representing the output state vector and the

washability characteristics of the core being considered.
Standard washability curves (28) must be prepared for a
sample that is representative of this subject coal.

These

curves are then reduced to either parameters fit to equa

tions describing the curves or discrete points on the curves
themselves.
Specifically, the vector called WITHIN are the
values which fit the polynomial:

45
START
INPUT WASHABILITY
TESTS, FLOTATION DATA,
TESTS,ETC.
LINES: I5S-199

INPUT COEFFICIENTS TO
LP MATRIX
LINES: 570-593

SET AIM SULPHUR

IN CLEAN COAL
LINES: 205-210

/
COEFS. \
CALCULATED ^
FOR ALL t OPTIONS
\AND ] SIZES
^ LINE: 596/

SET COAL WASH OPTION I

FOR COAL SIZE 1
LINES: 300-303

YES
CALC. YIELD, ASH,
SULPHUR a COSTS
FOR FLOTATION
LINES: 602-633

EST. APPROX. TONNAGE

IN EACH SIZE
LINES: 291-293

INPUT FLOTATION
COEFS. TO LP MATRIX
LINES: 643-691

EST. CAPITAL AND

OPERATING COSTS
LINES: 317-318

CALL MINT FOR

LP SOLUTION
LINE; 704

ALGORITHM TO CHOOSE
SP.GR.TO WASH
LINES: 360-376 OR 470-486

DO LOOP OVER ALL CLEAN

COAL WEIGHTS
FILL OUT RETURN TABLE
LINES : 757-772

CALC. TOTAL ASH AND

SULPHUR
LINES: 382-409 OR 492-516

/ TOTAL ^
SULPHUR a
AIM SULPHUR
\ AGREE

YES

INCREMENT SP. GR
LINES : 412-415
OR 519- 521

/ LAST
\
/AIM SULPHUR ^
LEVEL FOR CLEAN
\
COAL ?
Y
\LINE.776/

YES
CALC COEFS . FOR DIRECT
SHIP OPTION
LINES ;785-813

OUTPUT TABLE
LINES: 826-831

STOP

Figure 3.10.

Flowchart for Coal Preparation Model

46

% within .10 spgr = a + b * spgr + c * spgr2

+ d * spgr3 + ...
with the last two values defining upper and lower limits to
applicability.

The first two elements of the vector WININV

fit the hyperbolic function:

spgr = % within 0.10/(a * within 0.10) + b
while the last two again define limits.
FLTASH and FLTSUL are the first four polymonial
values determined from laboratory tests relating per cent
ash and per cent sulphur recovered to float, versus total
weight per cent of sample recovered to float, e.g.:
% ash to float = a + b * % total floated
+ c * % total floated

3
+ d * % total floated

SGMIDS are the discrete specific gravity values at

which washability tests were run.
WGHT are the discrete direct weight per cent of
sample reporting to clean coal at the corresponding specific
gravities of separation.

Similarly, WTPYS and WTASH are

the discrete compositions of float product at each

corresponding specific gravity.

This last value in each

vector gives total pyritic sulphur or total ash in the asmined sample.

Finally total per cent of organic sulphur in

the as-mined coal is given, as are weights of each size

47

fraction expressed as'a percentage.

The last data are

appropriate cost figures.

After all data are read, the aim sulphur level for
the clean coal product is set.

The specific gravity to

wash for each of the 13 options is adjusted so that the

product from that option approaches the aim sulphur value
as nearly as possible.

After all calculations have been

made for the 13 options, the linear programming tableau is

solved and the optimal means for achieving the aim sulphur
level is found.

This aim sulphur value is then incremented

and the process is repeated.

After all values of aim

sulphur have been considered, the transformation table is

printed and sent to tape and the program stops.

CHAPTER 4
COKE MANUFACTURE
The familiar byproduct coking oven will be the
primary focus of this section of the model discussion.
These slot ovens are the preeminent means for coking today,
having completely replaced beehive ovens.

A typical mass

balance for the process is shown in Figure 4.1.

While the byproduct ovens presently produce the
largest tonnage of coke, for numerous reasons extensive
research is being conducted into alternative processes.
Among recent developments is pipeline charging, developed
by the Wilputte Division of the Allied Chemical Company.
This has been proven to decrease coking time and increase
productivity for conventional ovens on which it is installed,
although some operational difficulties have been noted.
Claims have been advanced that pipeline charging can
satisfactorily coke blends of coal which previously were
submarginal, but data available show that the sulphur and
ash behavior during coking is largely the same as in
regular coke ovens.
Numerous people envision the day when the shortage
of low-volatile, low-sulphur bituminous metallurgical
coking coal will present the largest obstacle to production
48

49

CLEANED COAL
3147 POUNDS
STORAGE
PULVERIZER
PULVERIZED
COAL

COAL DUST
IS POUNDS

STORAGE
LARRY CAR

AIR

PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION
( HEATING)

COKE OVENS
3132 POUNDS

COKE OVEN
GAS
522 POUNDS

BYPRODUCTS
161 POUNDS TAR
29 POUNDS OIL

HOT COKE
2220 POUNDS

EXCESS COKE
OVEN GAS
(CREDIT)

WATER

SPENT LIQUOR

QUENCH TOWER

COOLED COKE

WATER AND SPENT LIQUOR

200 POUNDS SPENT LIQUOR
200 POUNDS SPENT LIQUOR

COKE WHARF
CRUSHER

SIZED COKE
2000 POUNDS

Figure 4.1.

UNDERSIZE COKE
220 POUNDS

Mass Balance for By-product Coke Oven

50

increases for the integrated ferrous industry.

For this

reason an altogether unique approach, generically termed

"formcoking," has attracted attention recently.

Variations

of the process are capable of producing coke from coals

such as lignite which have not been utilized before but
which generally enjoy low sulphur contents.

Control of

discharges to the atmosphere, continuous operation and nondependency on low-volatile coals also are appealing aspects
of the new systems.

Characteristically these processes can

be considered as having three main steps: (a) char prepara

tion, (b) briquette formation, and (c) calcination or heat
hardening.

Strangway and Holowaty (43) prepared an excel

lent discussion on the quantitative effects of trial

charging FMC formcoke to the Inland No. 5 blast furnace,
but no commercial successes have been note(^ from these
formcoke endeavors.
Figure 4.2 schematically shows cause and effect
relationships determined from the literature on byproduct
coking.

The ultimate objective of this stage is described

as the production of quality coke for burdening the blast

furnace.

"Quality" in this case can be defined quantitatively

by the second row of attributes; low values of sulphur and

ash, high values for stability and hardness.

As in all

processes, system economics generally are improved if the

production rate can be increased.

51

QUALITY COKE

LOW
SULPHUR

LOW
ASH

HIGH
STABILITY

PRODUCTION

HIGH 1/4
HARDNESS

INCREASED
OVEN
THROUGHPUT

CONSTRAINTS

OVENWALL
FORCE
HIGHER
BULK
DENSITY

INCREASED
FLUE
TEMPERATURE

LOWER
TEMP

CORRECT
PERCENT
LOW
VOLATILE

INCREASED
COKING
RATE

INCREASED
PERCENTAGE
-1/8''

INCREASED
PULVERIZATION
LEVEL

LOWER
DENSITY

DECREASED
COKING
RATE

DECREASED
CHARGE
MOISTURE

HIGHER
CHARGE
MOISTURE

PROPER
COKING RATE
AND
OVEN FLUE
TEMPERATURE

Figure 4.2.

Cause and Effect Relationships in the Produc

tion of High Quality Coke

52

One of the most important variables, the sulphur

content of the coke, has been described as a linear
function of the sulphur content of the coal.

In an early

work Thiessen (44) published the results from analysis of

82 samples of coke, and correlated the sulphur content of
the metallurgical coke to that found in the original coal
by:
coke sulphur = 0.62*(coal pyritic sulphur)
+ 0.45*(coal organic sulphur)

(4.1)

In 1964 the U. S. Bureau of Mines published a report (45)

giving a different form of the relationship:
coke sulphur = 0.084 + 0.759*(coal sulphur).

(4.2)

The Battelle Institute study (1) made use of additional USBM

data and reported a very similar equation:
coke sulphur = 0.77*(coal sulphur).

(4.3)

Several overall sulphur balances (1, 13, 46) also have been
made for coke ovens indicating that an average of 63% of the
coal sulphur remains with the coke, while 37% reports to
the byproducts and coke oven gas.
In all cases the ash content of the carbonized coke
reflects the ash content of the original coal with appro
priate corrections for yield.

With increasing coke ash and

correspondingly decreased fixed carbon, more slag is

produced in the blast furnace.

This in turn increases the

53

coke rate and decreases iron production.

The multi-variate

production rate equation of Quigley and Sayles (47) clearly

demonstrates this effect with a large negative coefficient
assigned to coke ash, as does Flint's (48) classic multiple
regression formula for blast furnace coke rate with its
large 0.60 lb C/lb ash coefficient.
The previous section of this dissertation dealing
with coal washing presented some analyses of ash components
in various coals.

Not only does the overall percentage of

ash have an impact on later use in the blast furnace, but

the percentage of acid slag-forming constituents is
important in burdening calculations.
Quigley and Sayles (47) established a direct rela
tionship between coke stability and blast furnace pro
ductivity in Inland 26 1/2 ft furnaces:
production (NTHM/day) = -40.13 + 47.3 W: stability

(4.4)

They also indicated that longer coking time and an increased

percentage of -1/8" coal translate into higher stability
values.

Wenger and Neubaum (.49) and Benedict, Thompson, and

Wenger (50) agree with the latter point.

It is well known also (28, 46, 49, 51) that 25 to.
30% low-volatile coal is required in the charge for
acceptable stability.

Today this is accomplished usually

by blending the more readily available high-volatile coal

with the low-volatile coal.

Wenger and Neubaum (49)

indicated that coal moisture and oven temperature also con

tribute to higher stability values.

Smith and Reynolds (52)

showed a linear dependence on charge density for stability.

Wu and Fredericks (.53) determined that the free
swelling index and the moisture and ash-free (maf) carbon
were the best bench scale indicators of coke stability
(correlation coefficient of 0.82),' but development of the
coal petrographic technique by Benedict et al. (50)
resulted in an even more consistent test.
As a means of improving the 1-1/2" shatter index,
Smith and Reynolds (52) suggested a decrease in charge
density.

Wu and Fredericks (53) indicated that a certain

amount of ash may represent the best economic compromise

between the amount which can be removed and a minor increase
in 1-1/2" shatter index.
Among numerous other correlations. Smith and
Reynolds (52) also established that increasing temperature
and increasing charge density served to improve 1/4" hard
ness, while increasing or decreasing carbonization tempera
ture from the 850C base temperature in their test oven
increased the relative coke yield.
As a final point, various constraints must be
observed.

The particularly important factor of oven wall

force has been related to carbonization temperature (52) and

to charge bulk density (52, 54, 55, 56).

55

4.1

Coke Oven Model

The computer model developed to represent the coke

oven uses the relatively straight-through logic shown in
Figure 4.3.
After program initialization, the first step is to
read the three input cost figures for coke oven time
(CSTOVN), coke oven gas (CSTGAS), and tar (CSTTAR).

Next,

recognizing that it is unlikely any single coal will have

proper coking characteristics by itself, the model was
developed with the capability of considering another coal
blended with the first.

The percentage of blend coal in

the total is then read, as are its composition (pyritic

sulphur, organic sulphur, and ash) and cost per ton.

The

data next read are the three coefficients which describe

the pyritic sulphur of the subject coal as a function of
its total sulphur, using an equation of the form:
pyritic S as per cent of total S = coef 0
+ coef 1 *(% total S) + coef 2 *(% total S)^
These coefficients are determined from analysis of the coal
washing model results.

Finally, the range of possible

values is read for the input, decision, and output variables

described below.
After setting the three input state variables
(subject coal total sulphur, subject coal ash, and total
coal weight per ton of steel) using a triple nested do-loop.

56

START ")

READ COSTS, BLEND

COAL COMPOSITION,ETC.
LINES: 40-80

ASSIGN 3 INPUT VARIABLES

COAL SULPHUR
COAL ASH
COAL WEIGHT
LINES: 84-96

CALC. BLENDED CHARGE

COMPOSITION
LINES: 105-109

ASSIGN 3 DECISION
VARIABLES
FLUE TEMPERATURES
CHARGE MOISTURE
PULVERIZATION LEVEL
LINES : 121-134

CALC. FINAL COKE ASH

LINE: 244

CALC. COKE STABILITY

LINES: 251-253

CALC. UNDERFIRING GAS

REQUIREMENT AND NET CREDIT

FOR EXCESS COKE OVEN GAS
LINES: 267-272

CALC. CREDIT FOR TAR, AS

FUNCTION OF SULPHUR CONTENT
LINES: 282-283

CALC. COST FOR ADDED WATER

LINES; 290-292

CALC: TEMPERATURES
FOR CORRELATIONS
LINES ; 139-143

CALC. COST OF BLEND COAL ADDED

LINES; 300-301

CALC. MASS BALANCE

LINES; 161-181

CALC. TOTAL COST

DEFINE TABLE INDICES
ENTER VALUES IN TABLE
LINES; 304-342

CALC. COKING RATE

CHARGE-TO-PUSH TIME
OVEN TIME COST
LINES: 184-194

CALC. SULPHUR BALANCE

FOR ALL STREAMS
LINES : 202-240

/ LAST
^
INPUT/
DECISION
COMBINATION ?
V LINE; 364.

OUTPUT TABLES
LINES : 368-389

STOP

Figure 4.3.

Flowchart for Coking Model

57

the composition of the charged coal is determined by mass

balance equations which consider both the subject coal and
the blend coal mentioned above.
Another triple do-loop sets the three values of the
decision variables: flue temperature; coal moisture as
charged; and coal pulverization level, which is the per cent
of coal with -1/8" size.
Having set the flue temperature, then the carboniza
tion temperature (CARBTP, used later in the program to
define coke tar and gas yield) is set at 325F less than the
flue temperature, based on information from Sorenson (57).
Next the test oven temperature (TSTTMP, which is used in
equations developed from the data in Wenger and Neubaum
[49]) is set at 100F less than the flue temperature.
According to Wenger (58), the Homer Research Laboratory
test oven which was used to generate the data in reference
(49) apparently operates at this constant 100F difference
less than the full-scale coke batteries.
As the next step, the mass balance section of the
program uses average values for yields developed from
numerous sources (1, 13, 46, 57, 59, 60).

On a dry basis,

the coke yield is assumed equal to the ash and fixed carbon
content.

The program reads the fixed carbon content for

both the subject and blend coals, and additionally calcu

lates the volatile matter by difference after the ash
content is set.

58
\

The volatile matter in turn is assumed to report to

the gas, oil, and tar components.

The present model in

corporates the tradeoff between tar yield and gas yield

with carbonization temperature reported by Smith and
Reynolds (54).

The tradeoff apparently is derived from the

tendency for tar to crack at higher carbonization tempera

tures, forming lighter hydrocarbons which instead report to
the gas.
Finally, the oil product is assumed as a constant
per cent of the volatile matter over all carbonization
temperatures, while the liquor product represents the
moisture component of the charged coal, thus closing the
total mass balance.
Upon closing the mass balance, the amount of coke
oven gas generated is converted to units of standard cubic
feet, assuming an average molecular weight of 9.53 as
suggested in The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel (59).
The reported gas composition agrees with that shown in
3
Ortuglio, Walters, and Wolfson (60). Also, 540 btu/ft is
assigned as the heating value of the coke oven gas, based
on the data in reference (59).
The coking rate under the given decision vector
conditions is determined next from equations fitted to data
in Figures 1 and 2 of Wenger and Neubaum (49).

First, the

coking rate in inches per hour is calculated for the

standard case, where the test oven flue temperature is held

59

constant at 2250.

Coking rate was reported to increase

with increasing values of both pulverization level and

Equation (4.5) fits the data.
Coking rate (in/hr) at 2250 = 0.725 + 0.0135 * coal
moisture + 0.0056 * pulverization level
- 2.35 X 10 ^ * (pulv./moisture) - 0.00433
* (pulv./moisture)

(4.5)

The overall coking rate is the sum of this base coking rate
and the result from Equation (4.6) which relates the change
in coking rate, relative to the 2250 base case, as a linear
function of oven flue temperature:
coking rate change = -.343 + 0.00152 * oven flue
temperature

(4.6)

Coking time then is simply the oven width divided by coking

rate.

The oven time cost is discussed in the chapter on

costs.
The sulphur balance is computed next.

The symbol IS

on line number 179 of the computer listing for the coke

oven in Appendix D is a composite set of predicted weights
of sulphur as it is distributed to the various output
material streams.

The predicted amounts and the data from

which the composite is derived are shown in Table 4.1.

60

Table 4.1.

Distribution of Sulphur in Output Streams as

Percentage of Total Sulphur in Coal

Coke

H2S
Gas

Organic
Gas

Tar

Composite

62.6

28.6

1.4

4.9

Wilson and Wells

(46, p. 226)

60.0

Lowry (30, p. 446)

66.9

28.7

Russell and Vaughn

(13, p. 63)

63.0

28.8

4.0

Gollmar (in 30,

p. 947)

60.0

28.0

1.5

7.0

3.5

Reference

Liquor

Other

2.5

40.0
1.2

2.8

1.1

3.8

Symbols 2 S , 3S, and 6S refer to the data shown in

Figures V-8, V-9, and V-7, respectively, in the Battelle
(1) study v/hich state:

lb S to coke from 1 net ton of coal

= 1.45 + 10.0 * % S coal

(4.7)

lb S to gas from 1 net ton of coal

= 7.5 * % S coal
% S coke = 0.84 * % S coal

(4.8)
(4.9)

Symbols 4S and 5S refer to Equations (4.1) and C4.2)

presented earlier.
Having utilized this series of predictive equations,
each value of the output sulphur is then adjusted in an

61

amount proportional to its magnitude in order to close the

overall sulphur balance.
The following step in the program of estimating coke
ash content, is handled in a relatively simple manner by
assuming that the entire quantity of ash charged to the
furnace will be present in the coke product.
Coke stability is then determined using information
reported by Wenger and Neubaum (49).

Their Figure 4 is a

graph relating both the charge coal moisture and the

pulverization level to the stability.

In equation form,

these curves were fit by;

STBL = 36.74 - 0.139 * moisture
+ 0.148 * pulverization
+ 0.236 * (pulv./moisture)
A water balance is then calculated, and the cost for
any water required is determined.
The underfiring gas requirement was computed from
the information in Grosick, Helms, and Airgood (61).

They

determined that the underfiring requirement is 1088 btu/lb

wet coal for given base conditions where the coking rate is
1.0 in/hr, carbonization temperature is 1850F, per cent
excess air for combustion is 25%, and the charged coal has
6% moisture, 31% volatile matter and a bulk density of 50
lb/ft .

In an accompanying series of graphs, changes in

certain of these conditions were found to result in linear

62

changes in underfiring gas requirements.

For each increase

of 0.1 in/hr in coking rate, the gas requirement increased

by 17.6 btu/lb.

As the carbonization temperature increased

by 1F, the gas required increased by 0.54 btu/lb (allowing

for heat losses which do not increase the enthalpy of the
coke).

Finally, for a 1% increase in the excess air or

1% increase in the charge coal moisture, the underfiring

requirements increased by 2.0 and 15.0 btu/lb of wet coal,
respectively.

In equation form, this underfiring gas

requirement is calculated using;

UNDRFR = 1088. + 176. * (coking rate-1.0)
+ 0.54 * (CARBTP-1850.) + 2.0 * (XSAIR - 25.0)
+15. * (charge coal moisture - 6.0)

(4.13)

At an earlier step in the program the standard

cubic feet of coke oven gas generated was determined.

The

difference between that amount and the quantity calculated

above for underfiring is labeled XSGAS, and a credit accrues
to the stage for this excess.
The stage is also credited for the amount of tar
produced.

Price for this commodity is taken as a linear

function of its sulphur content, which is calculated earlier

in the sulphur balance.
The final program step is to define the output state
index, knowing values of the variables in the output state
vector (coke sulphur, coke ash, coke stability, and coke

weight per ton of steel).

The total stage return and the

output state index are then entered in their respective

tables, and program logic returns to definition of a new
input/decision vector combination if another is to be
calculated.

Otherwise the stage cost and transformation

tables are transferred to magnetic tape and the program

stops.

CHAPTER 5
BLAST FURNACE IRONMAKING
Today's modern blast furnace is the evolutionary
product of many research programs that were conducted
primarily with productivity in mind.
have been successful.

By any measure they

Boylan (62) portrayed this extra

ordinary development in a table which showed the gross tons

of hot metal per man-hour increasing over 100% in the last
twenty years.

This productivity gain has come about largely

through a fuller understanding of the physics and thermo

chemistry of the process.
Figure 5.1, adapted from Voice and Dixon (63),
shows the cause and effect relationships that increase
productivity (neglecting the benefits that could be derived
from scale increases).

They developed a productivity index

which depends on the tradeoffs between increased driving

rates on the one hand, and decreased coke rates on the other.
Quigley and Sayles (47) developed two empirical
bivariate correlations relating production in Inland Steel
Company blast furnaces to the variables wind rate and coke
stability.

By developing a single multivariatecorrelation

with the eight variablescoke stability, slag production,

wind rate, pellets, coarse ore, slag Si02f coke ash, and oil
64

65

INCREASED BLAST FURNACE PRODUCTIVITY

DECREASED COKE CONSUMPTION RATE

(COKE RATE)

INCREASED COKE BURNING RATE

(DRIVING RATE)

INCREASED BLAST OXYGEN BLOWING

RATE

INCREASED BUST
VOLUME BLOWING RATE

IMPROVED
STOCK
PERMEABILITY
STEAM
INJECTION

OXYGEN
ENRICHMENT
IN BLAST

Figure 5.1.

INCR.
BLAST
PRESSURE
HIGH TOP
PRESSURE

BURDEN
PREPARATION
(SIZING)

OECR. THERMAL
LOAD IN
BURDEN

FUEL
INJECTANTS

IMPROVED
SOLID/GAS
CONTACT A
REDUCIBILITY
ENRICHED
BURDEN
BURDEN
PREPARATION

INCR
BLAST
TEMPERATURE

CALCINED
FLUX

BURDEN
PREPARATION

Factors Governing Blast Furnace Productivity

66

injectionthe coefficient of determination, r2, was

increased to 0.89.

It is obvious that these variables are

included in Figure 5.1, some contributing to the driving

rate and some to the coke rate.
The importance of coke stability has been noted
before.

This effect lies primarily in improved bed

permeability, according to Hatano and Fukuda (64).

Screening of the iron oxide burden also effects better
bed permeability (65-68).
Steam injection and oxygen enrichment have been
pursued by numerous people (67, 69), most notably the
Russians.
Good quality coke is at a premium for many ironmakers, so a great deal of effort has been expended to
decrease the coke rate.

The Japanese have been notably

successful, with some furnaces reportedly averaging less

than 800 Ib/nthm (68).
The first comprehensive statement on the response
of coke rate to numerous variables was that of Flint C48).
Quigley and Sayles (47) later developed a more specific
model for coke rate based on stability of the coke, slag
production, oil injected, coke size, windrate, and
analyses of the slag and hot metal.

Wintrell's (70)

development of a thermochemical blast furnace model makes

use of empirical relationships, heat and material balances,
and known hot metal silicon values to predict blast furnace

67

productivity, coke rate, and certain hot metal characteris

tics.

Boylan (62) presented an equation relating coke rate

to the burden mix.

As the above discussion implies, coke rate is
intimately tied to burden preparation.

Increasingly, sinter

has become a successful replacement for other iron units

(67, 68, 71, 72, 73).
Since the first experiment with fuel injection to
decrease coke rate in 1958 at the Bruceton Experimental
Furnace, this practice has become nearly universal (67, 68,
71, 74-78).

The sulphur content of the common fuels such

as tar, fuel oil and natural gas should be carefully con

sidered in developing the best injection program.

Blast

temperature must also be considered concurrently with fuel

injection, and an economic limit has been suggested by some
researchers (67, 71-73).
While productivity is a necessary goal, the question
of sulphur also must be addressed.

Where physics, chemistry,

and transport phenomena are collectively important in

productivity increases, the primary factor in sulphur
removal from the blast furnace appears to be thermochemistry.
Figure 5.2 was developed to depict the means of
achieving lower sulphur content in the hot metal.

Under

steady state conditions, sulphur content can be lowered

either by simply not introducing as much to the furnace or
by increasing the furnace's desulphurization potential.

68

LOWER

SULPHUR IN HOT METAL

INCREASED
DESULPHURIZATION
POTENTIAL

LOWER
SULPHUR INPUT

LOWER P,
CO

LOWER SULPHUR COKE

INCREASED SLAG
VOLUME

LOWER COKE RATE

FLINTS

FORMULA

KINETICS
*

LOWER SULPHUR BURDEN

INCREASED HOT METAL

TEMPERATURE

INCREASED PARTITION
RATIO
%S

s+o-->o+s-,K=

Oq *

ac=

00=
,

Os * Qo= s
9

II
oo

DECREASE
FeO IN SLAG

INCREASE
BASICITY

(7oS-)

ao=
= K

{"/"^HM^

ao= * fc
- K
^

g * ^5=
fs= +

INCREASE
7oSi, 7oC

^ _ %Cq0 + 7oMgO

'%Al203+%SI02

Figure 5.2.

Factors Governing the Amount of Sulphur Leaving

the Blast Furnace in the Hot Metal

69

As Agarwal and Elliott (79) point out, the blast

furnace is uniquely able to furnish a high desulphurization
potential, primarily because of its strongly reducing con
ditions.

If the desulphurization reaction is written ^ + 0~

= S~ + 0, then the development in Figure 5.2 indicates the

action that can be taken with respect to the equilibrium
partition ratio.
In summary form, an increased thermodynamic parti
tion ratio is promoted by:
1.

A low oxidizing potential, which implies a low FeO

content in the slag.

This in turn results in

decreased oxygen in hot metal solution in equilibrium

with slag FeO.
2.

A basic slag with corresponding high activity of

oxygen ion.

3.

High concentrations of carbon, silicon, and

phosphorus.,

These elements exhibit large positive

values for first order interaction coefficients on

sulphur (80).
4.

High alkali content slag which theoretically

enhances the equilibrium constant.

In blast

furnace practice this is obviously not a viable

means to achieve desulphurization because of
refractory attack, but in external desulphurization
these elements can be utilized successfully.

70

Partition ratio equations have been developed by

numerous people.

Agarwal and Elliott (79) quoted the semi-

empirical relationship:
(%S)/[%S]

(fg/P^Q)(0.87

10^-^)

(5.1)

In Chapter 3 of reference (66), Hasenack and VanToor gave

an empirical relationship, good within certain limits:
(%S)/[%S] = -505 - 0.16(vol) + 9.71{Al203)
+ 407(B) + 65(%^)
where (vol) is the slag volume.

(5.2)
Wisconsin Steel analyzed

plant data and suggested (note the inversion of the ratio):

[%S]/(%S)

0-037 (%S^^j^g)

0.0724 (V)

0.06128

where the V-ratio is defined by: (%CaO)/(%Si02)-

(5.3)

From

industrial data, Ambrosetti and Crovella (81) established

that the partition ratio is correlated to the variables of
hot metal temperature and slag basicity by:
(%S)/[%S] =0.858(Tj^C) + 121.410(V) - 1390.365

(5.4)

If the desulphurization is instead thought to occur via:

CaO + S + C, . = CO, , + CaS
(gr)
(g)
then it can be seen that increasing P^^ decreases
equilibrium
With respect to mass balance and kinetic considera
tions, desulphurization is improved by:

71

1.

Increasing slag volume, furnishing a larger sink to

which the sulphur can report.

2.

Increasing slag fluidity by additions such as

fluorspar.

Again this alternative cannot be used

in a blast furnace.
3.

Increasing hearth mixing, allowing sulphur to be

transferred from the metal to the slag when thermo
dynamic conditions are favorable.

At the present

time, there is no control over this in the blast

furnace.
Finally, in order to realize a lower sulphur load
to the furnace to start with. Figure 5.2 indicates that
lower sulphur coke and lower sulphur burden can be charged,
or the coke rate can be decreased at a constant coke sulphur
value.

In 1949 Kennedy and Thornton (82) reported a direct

correlation between coke sulphur and coke rate.

As

mentioned above, numerous other people subsequently reported

this effect.
5.1

Blast Furnace Metallurgical Model

For the specific case at hand, the transformation

function, tgp, is defined by an iterative step by step
calculation coupled with a simultaneous heat and material
balance solution over the high temperature "processing zone"
of the blast furnace.

As stated previously, the input

vector to the blast furnace, X^p, is composed of discrete

72

values for coke sulphur, coke ash, coke stability and coke
weight, while the output vector, Ygp/ is made up of discrete
values for hot metal sulphur, silicon, runner temperature,
and in this case, hot metal weight.

The decision variable

vector, Dgp, includes defined values for basicity ratio,

windrate, and blast temperature.

Finally, each calculation

requires that certain variables be held constant, with

values assigned to blast humidity, top pressure, aggregate
burden composition, and to the furnace size, carbon
constant, and heat loss.
Figure 5.3 depicts the flowchart employed in the
prediction of the output state, given fixed values for the
input and decision vectors.
After input of known parameter and composition
values, the coke rate is predicted using Flint's formula.
Initial estimates are required for the two output vector
parameters; hot metal sulphur and hot metal silicon.

These

are later checked to insure that the coke rate properly

reflects their expected outcome values.
Next, mass balances are calculated for silica,
alumina, magnesia, and lime in order to determine the
limestone charge required to achieve the given value of the
basicity ratio decision variable.

The amount of charged

silicon reporting to the slag must first be assumed, in

order to solve for the limestone charge, and this too is
checked and corrected, if necessary, at a later point.

73

START
INPUT PARAMETERS
CONSTANTS, COSTS
ETC.
LINES: 114-138

PREDICT HM SULPHUR
LINES: 577-6'IO

CALC. DAILY PRODUCTION

LINES: 637-650

SET INPUT AND

DECISION VARIABLES
LINES: 154-176

CALC COKE RATE AGAIN

WITH UPDATED VALUES
LINES; 670-685

SET FLAG = .FALSE.

LINE: 198

CALC. COKE RATE

LINES: 222-337

NO

/ COKE \
/RATE AGREE
WITH PREVIOUS
\ESTIMATE ?
\LINE: 706/
YES

CALC. SLAG
VOLUME
LINES: 353-415
PREDICT HMS
AND TEMP
LINES: 431-543
AND SUBROUTINE HEAT

FLAG = .TRUE. ?
V LINE: 708/

NO

SET FLAG
= .TRUE.

YES

NO

ESTIMATE COSTS
LINE: 743 AND
SUBROUTINE CALC

/ SLAG \
/SIOZ AGREEN
WITH PREVIOUS
V ESTIMATE?
\LINE: 562/

FIND INDICES FOR

STAGE RETURNS AND
TRANSFORMATIONS
FILL IN TABLES
LINES: 756-823

YES

NO

/ LAST
N
TNPUT DECISION
VARIABLE
COMBINATION? .
\LINE: 831/
YES
OUTPUT TABLES
LINES: 636-863
STOP )

Figure 5.3.

Flowchart for Blast Furnace Model

74

Having determined coke rate and limestone charge,

heat and material balances are calculated over the high
temperature "processing zone" of the furnace.

The concept

of dividing the blast furnace process into two zonesa

conditioning and a processing zoneis largely a result of
the theoretical considerations of Rist and Bonnivard (83)
as referenced in Bodsworth and Bell (84).

They envisaged

that, in the conditioning zone, the cold oxidized burden is

countercurrently heated to approximately 1800F and
reduced to wustite by the gas from the processing zone.
This gas is assumed to be in equilibrium with elemental
iron and wustite at the 1800F temperature.
Meanwhile, in the processing zone, the prereduced
burden entering at 1800F is further reduced to iron; this
iron and the stable oxides are eventually melted to form,
respectively, the hot metal and the slag at the hearth.

In

this processing zone the coke is converted to carbon

monoxide, both by combustion and by direct reduction of the
wustite.
The high temperature form of heat balance was
developed here to give recognition to the fact that not
only must enough energy be available to effect the chemical
changes which occur, but that the energy must be present
above a certain temperature.

A heat balance is made of the

requirements, at a temperature above 1800F, utilized in the

75

direct reduction of a certain amount of the slag silica to

silicon in the metal, and in the heat losses which occur.
Because the reduction of silica to silicon is
governed by kinetic factors, hot metal silicon values
cannot be adequately predicted directly from thermodynamic
considerations.

To circumvent this problem in the present

case, correlations of industrial data (72, 85) were used to

predict hot metal silicon as a linear function of hot metal
runner temperature.

Over the hot metal runner temperature

range from 2520 to 2700F the three independent sets of data

showed remarkable agreement in the value for the slope
(0.00257), but varied in the intercept with values ranging
from -6.5 to -5.0.

Both the intercept and slope parameters

can be adjusted in this model, but it is more likely that

the intercept parameter will exhibit the greater sensi
tivity to a specific blast furnace and burden practice.
In the same way that the heat and mass balance
effects from silica reduction can be described as a function
of the unknown variable, temperature, the heat and mass
balance changes derived from carbon dissolution in hot
metal can be developed.

By substituting the linear

function for hot metal silicon

(%Si = -6.05 + 0.0025774 TF)

(5.5)

into the equation for carbon saturation

(%C = 1.28 + 0.00142 TF - 0.304 %Si)

(5.6)

76

as given in references (73) and (86), the carbon content may

be expressed solely as a function of runner temperature,
viz:
(%C = 3.1192 + 0.00636 TF).

(5.7)

Having defined the hot metal carbon and silicon

contents as linear functions of temperature, one then can
fix both the composition of the prereduced burden being
introduced into the processing zone, and the CO and CO2
composition of the bosh gas leaving this zone.

From

thermodynamic calculations the CO to CO2 ratio in equilibriimi

with elemental iron and wustite is approximately 2.85; this
value is in agreement with probe observations (87).

[The

data given in reference (87) are somewhat suspect, however,

in reporting that the %C02 near the tuyere line is something
other than zero.]
Four independent relations are required to solve for
the four unknown variables: runner temperature (TMP), grammoles of silica in the slag (SI02), weight of carbon intro
duced to the zone (WCC), and weight of bosh gas leaving the
zone (WTG).

The three mass balances for carbon, silicon,

and oxygen (including the oxygen in silica but neglecting

that in alumina, lime, and magnesia) and the one energy
balance can be written in terms of these four unknowns.
This system of equations can then be solved using a sub
routine from IBM's Scientific Subroutine Package, based on

77

Gaussian Elimination with complete pivoting.

A complete

derivation of the energy/mass balance equations is given in

Appendix A.
Results from a typical example run are:
TMP = 2627 F (1715 K)

SI02 = 2201.4

WCC = 422596.

WTG = 2.336 x 10^

Other outputs then calculated are:

% Si = 0.722

% C = 3.12

% Si02 in slag = 39.46

From the solution of the simultaneous equations, the
value of Si02 reporting to the slag can be estimated.

The

limestone charge calculation is then compared to that

assumed earlier, and if necessary the simultaneous equa
tions are again developed and solved.
Hot metal sulphur is next calculated, based on the
partition ratio relationships in Equations (5.1) and C5.4).
The semi-empirical equation from Agarwal and Elliott (79)
is the only one which reflects the effect of increased
derived from increased operating top pressure.
Finally, by knowing the hot metal sulphur and
silicon composition, the Flint formula for coke rate is
checked.

If necessary the coke rate is corrected, and the

limestone charge and high temperature heat and mass

balances are again determined.
Once the iterative calculations have converged, the
output vector is defined.

At this point, productivity is

78

estimated using an empirical relationship, based in part on

one reported by Ouigley and Sayles (47).
The original equation of Quigley and Sayles yielded
unsatisfactory results when implemented directly in the
program.

The terms containing slag silica to the first

power and daily slag production to the negative two power,

v/ere eliminated by multiplying each coefficient by results
from the corresponding average and summing these into the
constant.

It also appeared that no production rate effect

was being exhibited by increasing blast temperature, while

this is a well-kno\i7n fact.
An additional term containing blast temperature,
and a constant were added to finally result in;
Production (NT/day) = 1035.0 + (12.85 * STBL)
+ (0.0091 * SCFM) + (4.09 * pellets %)
+ (5.32 * coarse ore %) + (0,46 * oil (NT/day))
- (57.27 * coke ash)
+ (0.60 * 1.8) * (BLTMPK - DOWNN)

CHAPTER 6
EXTERNAL DESULPHURIZATION
Despite the fact that the blast furnace offers an
excellent medium for desulphurization of hot metal, more
steelmakers are reexamining the old concept of desulphuriza
tion external to the furnace.

In a recent article

Kurzinski (88) recounted experimental work he and others

performed in the late 1940's and early 1950's using caustic
soda, soda ash, lime, and magnesium powder.

None of the

programs were adopted commercially because the economic

return was doubtful.

Charging desulphurized iron to the

open hearth furnace could not be rationalized when sulphurbearing fuels would quickly negate any advantages.
The steel industry has changed since that time.
The advent of the basic oxygen converter, the requirement
for lower sulphur steels, and the deterioration in raw
material quality all have caused a reassessment of de
sulphurization strategy.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the relevant industrial
aspects of this stage.

An effective desulphurization

scheme should satisfy the five characteristics described

in the second row.

79

EFFECTIVE EXTERNAL DESULPHURIZATION

THERMO
DYNAMIC
POSSIBILITY

HIGH KINETIC
RATE

HANDLING

AVAILABILITY
OF REAGENTS

COST
$/NT

TEMPERATURE

SILICON
PARTICIPATION

PARTICLE
SIZEREACTION
AREA

OXYGEN EFFECT

RAW
MATERIAL

EQUIPMENT
AND LADLES

RESULTING
SLAG

REAGENTS

Co Co + HoO >

MATERIAL LOSS

MIXING
CaO + FeS
Cos + FeO
FeO - Fo + 0

HEAT LOSS

BF
OPERATION

Figure 6.1. Factors Governing Effective External Desulphurization

81

Thermodynamic feasibility is an obvious requirement.

Any desulphurizer chosen should effectively remove dissolved
sulphur from the metal and combine it into a form that is
convenient for separation.

In Chapter 9 of reference (66)

Tsuchiya reported the standard free energy change for the

two reactions:
CaO, , + S = CaS, , + O, AG = 26050 - 6.99T
(s)

(s)
'
CaC , . + S = CaS, . + 2C, .
2(s)

(s)
(sat.)

AG" = -85800 + 26.14T

Assuming that [%C] = 4.5, [%Mn] = 0.8, [%Si] = 0.7, [%0] =

0.0005 and T = 1350C then [%S] = 1 x 10 ^ for CaO and
[%S] = 4 X 10-7 for CaC2. Using data from BOF Steelmaking
(89) and Electric Furnace Steelmaking (90), under the same
conditions it is found that [%S] = 5 x 10 ^ for magnesium.
In Chapter 8 of reference (66) Puckoff and Kister
mentioned that the lime reaction can be written as above, or
alternatively with silicon participation as:
[S] + [Si] = S

CaO = Ca+2

.+4
+ Si

+ 0

Note that the ionic species are assumed to be the species

diffusing through the ca- silicate or CaS product layers,
in order to react.

82

While the desulphurization reaction must occur, the

reversion reaction (e.g., CaS + 0^ = CaO + S) must be
suppressed in order for the treatment to be significant.
In Chapters 8 and 16 of reference (66), various researchers
agreed that reducing conditions are required, and that
injection with a natural gas carrier can prevent an
increase in "FeO" concentration in the vicinity of reacting
particles.

This, however, would not prove to be useful when

the reversion occurs some time after treatment.

It was also

reported on pp. 5-24 of reference (66) that the basicity of

the slag can change from 1.2 at the blast furnace to 0.65
in the transfer car at the hot metal station, due to
dissolution of acid refractory from the transfer ladle
lining.

Hot metal sulphur increases correspondingly during

that time.
The second aspect of desulphurization to consider is
kinetics.

The rates of reaction using lime and calcium

carbide follow the conventional parabolic rate law indi

cating the build-up of a CaS layer that acts as the ratelimiting step [Chapters 8 and 9 of reference (66)].
Particle size then should have a distinct effect on
efficiency, particularly at high sulphur contents.

Low

sulphur levels in the metal would call for increased metal/

reagent turbulence to increase sulphur transport across the
fluid boundary layer to reaction sites.

Tsuchiya et al.

83

(in 66) claim that the reaction rate for CaC2 is 20 times
that of CaO.
Magnesium, on the other hand, presents an entirely
different problem.

Upon submersion the magnesium quickly

vaporizes, creating a boiling effect in the ladle which

leads to hot metal loss.

The development of mag-coke

alleviated this problem, with the coke insulating the

magnesium and moderating its release rate.
Under the heading "Handling," one must consider both
the raw material and the resulting slag.

According to

discussions in Chapters 8 and 9 of reference (66), acetylene

generation (CaC2 + H2O = C2H2 + CaO) has been a common
problem when wet dekishing subs that had been treated with
calcium carbide.

Likewise, moisture must be excluded when

handling the reagent CaC2 before treatment.

Unreacted

magnesium and water also can be a dangerous combination

according to Koros and Petrushka (in 66).

Final disposal

of any slag must also be considered, and if disposition is

by later use in cement or ballast, the type of reagent chosen
is important.
Soda ash is notorious for the evolution of fumes
during its reaction and this has limited its application.
An objectionable amount of CaC2 dust during injection like
wise has been noted in some cases (66).
Availability is a proper concern in choosing a de
sulphurizing reagent.

Should the steel industry adopt

84

external desulphurization as a standard practice and agree

on a single method, there may be difficulty in supplying the
demand.

Magnesium is a good case in point because in 1974

it was in very short supply.

Since that time, factors such

as increased prices, decreased demand, and greater produc

tion capacity have combined to make it more readily
available.
While several older CaC2 plants have been shut down
for environmental reasons, CaC2 capacity is still available
that could service somewhat higher demands.

According to

Koros on pp. 6-21 of reference (66), crushing capacity is

the only possible bottleneck.

Burnt lime capacity

apparently is sufficient for moderate increases in demand.

The final factor of importance in desulphurization
is cost.

Productivity increases and consequent savings

have been claimed by various people.

In Chapter 6 of

reference (66), August Thyssen-Hutte claimed a 6% production

increase after converting to complete CaC2 desulphurization.
In Chapter 2 of reference (66), metallurgists at Dofasco
indicated that they enjoyed a 13% iron production increase
after switching the blast furnace to high sulphur operation
and using mag-coke on the hot metal.

In this case, external

desulphurization costs were supposedly only 69% of the

measured blast furnace savings.
In Chapters 2, 7, 8, 15, and 17 of reference (.66),
and in reference C88), reagent costs and consumption have

85

been tabulated by several workers.

Operationally, iron lost

to splashing and slag FeO, and a drop in hot metal tempera

ture can convert into poorer yields or efficiency.
Generally iron loss is held to 0.1 to 0.15% [Chapter 8,
reference (66)].

Hot metal temperature loss in routine

operation is usually 1F per minute or 35 to 50 overall

beyond that expected from blast furnace tapping until final
charge to the BOF.
External desulphurization literature has been well
organized.

Kurzinski (88) lists 68 papers, many of which

were printed in the early 1950's.

In Chapter 17 of

reference (66), Tokuda and Wu presented an updated compre

hensive literature survey that listed most applicable
papers published from 1967 through 1975.
6.1

External Desulphurization Model

The external desulphurization model represents a

somewhat different approach to predicting this stage's
output state, given a vector representing the state of the
entering material.

Where the previously-discussed blast

furnace model was developed using iterative solutions to

thermochemical equations, the present stage transformation
function relies instead on predictive equations empirically
fit to industrial data.
The possible decision variables are represented by
five basic alternatives.

The first is simply to do nothing.

This can be considered as the base case, since external

desulphurization is yet to be recognized as an integral
step in domestic steelmaking operations.

The second

possible decision is to plunge mag-coke.

In the present

study two levels of magnesium addition were considered:

one plunge at 1.5 pounds mag-coke/ton hot metal and two
plunges at 3.0 lb mag-coke/ton hot metal.

The third

alternative was calcium carbide injection using natural

gas or nitrogen as carrier.

Five levels of reagent addi

tions were assumed, in increments from 3.5 to 11.4 pounds

CaC2 reagent/ton hot metal.

The fourth alternative also

made use of CaC2 reagent, but the method for addition was
the KR stirrer which has been developed extensively by the
Japanese.

Reflecting their relatively more efficient

practice, the five levels of CaC2 assumed were from 1.2 to

3.8 pounds CaC2 reagent/ton hot metal.

Finally, powdered

lime injection was the fifth alternative process allowed

as a decision variable.

Here, too, the output state is

calculated for five levels of addition, which in this case

range in increments from 10.6 to. 33.5 pounds CaO/ton.
In total, these 5 basic alternatives have therefore
been subdivided into 18 possible decisions for which the
output state vector and stage return are calculated at
each value of the input vector.

These 18 decisions and

their reagent costs are summarized in Table 8.4 (p. 126).

87

The relationship between reagent consumption and the

initial and final sulphur concentrations was found to be
represented by a single-parameter equation with a form verysimilar to a first-order kinetic model; i.e..
In(Sinitiai/^final^ = K * reagent consumption
This form is suggested if the assumption is made that the
rate of reagent injection is constant and that, in turn,
the sulphur concentration is proportional to time.

Solu

tion of the resulting differential equation (ds/dt = -KS),

with the amount of reagent substituted in place of time,
will yield the familiar exponential form of sulphur concen
tration versus the amount of added reagent.

Figure 6.2

illustrates this general effect for a given initial sulphur

level of SQ.
Analysis of a great deal of industrial data resulted
in calculation of values analogous to the first order
reaction rate constant for the four cases of: plunging
mag-coke, injecting CaC2, KR stirring of CaC2, and injecting
powdered lime.
Table 6.1 summarizes the constants calculated from
the referenced data.

The spread in data that is noted would

certainly not be unexpected in analysis of industrial

results.
For the most part, the values used in the model are
averages of the calculated source values.

As there was some

88

[s, /Si]

HOT METAL
SULPHUR
RATIO

REAGENT CONSUMPTION-^

Figure 6.2.

Model Used to Predict Final Sulphur Level at

Fixed Values of Initial Sulphur Level and
Reagent Consumption

Table 6.1.

External Desulphurization Constants and Industrial Data Sources

Desulphurization
Method

Literature Source

Assumed
Reagent
Purity

Mag-coke
plunging
Dofasco (in 66, p. 2-5)
(in 66, p. 2-22)
Sumitomo (in 66, p. 4-10)
Algoma (in 66, p. 5-17)
Stelco Cin 66, p. 11-6)
Italsider (in 66, p. 13-10)
Koros, Petrushka, and Kerl
(91, p. 37)

45% Mg
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%

CaC- injection
ATH (in 66, p. 6-21)
J & L (in 66, p. 7-12)
Quebec (in 66, p. 10-15)
Inland (in 66, p. 16-7)
Kurzinski (881, p. 64)

1.0 (lb cont Mg/

NTHM)-1^
0.77
1.07
1.36
0.72
0.91
1.20

1.17
0.17 (lb cont CaCV
NTHM)-1^
0.24

65%
85%
70%
65%

CaC2KR stir
Italsider (in 66, p. 13-8)
Nippon (in 66, p. 15-11)
(in 66, p. 14-12)
(Rhienstahl stirrer)

Reaction Constant,
K

90%
70%
70%

0.16
0.11

0.17
0.10

0.5 (lb cont CaC~/

NTHM)-1'
0.35
0.54
0.25

Table 6.1.Continued

Desulphurization
Method

Literature Source

CaO injection
J & L (in 66, p. 7-12)
Kurzinski (88, p. 67)
Hoesch (in 66, p. 8-17)
(long residence-time
mixer)
Value used in current study.

Assumed
Reagent
Purity

Reaction Constant,
K
0.048 (lb CaO/
NTHM)-1^
0.048
0.025
0.071

91

question about the level of contained CaC2 in the carbide

reagent for almost all these cases,the values for the CaC2
injection and KR stirring of CaC2 must be viewed as somewhat
uncertain.
While not completely comparable with KR stirring,
the results reported for the Rhienstahl stirrer also are
shown in Table 6.1.

In addition it should be noted that

for lime injection the more recent J & L data were, used to
represent that alternative.
The temperature loss due to external desulphurization also must be considered as an important part of the
model depicting this stage; this has a substantial impact
on the operation and the economics of the next stage
downstream.

Here again industrial data were used in pre

dicting this part of the output state vector.

For the "no-

desulphurization" case, the output temperature from this

stage is simply the blast furnace runner temperature minus
the standard temperature drop that is expected.

For the

other alternatives, however, the time delays and the addi

tion of material to the ladle bring about an additional loss
of heat.

Table 6.2 summarizes the information gathered on

this temperature drop.

The third part of the output state vector is the hot
metal silicon.

As mentioned earlier, while there is some

evidence to suggest that silicon may participate in the

desulphurization reactions, it is assumed here that the

Table 6.2.

Temperature Loss Factors for External Desulphurization

This Study

Desulphurization
Method

Literature Source

Observation

Mag-coke
plunging
Dofasio
(in 66, p. 2-17)
Sumitomo
(in 66, p. 4-15)
Stelco (in 66,
p. 11-18)
J & L (in 66,
p. 7-19)

2F/min

15 min 1 plunge
25 min 2 plunge

4F/min

5-10 min

1.3F/min

20-35 min

lC/min
36F/35 min
15 min

20-30C
27F/7 min
10 min
13F

CaC2-KR stir
Nippon (in 66,
p. 15-22)
Italsider (in 66,
p. 13-14)

Total Cycle
Time

40-50P

CaC2 injection
Italsxder (in 66,
p. 13-14)
Inland (in 66,
p. 16-10)
J & L (in 66,
p. 7-9)
Koros et al.
(91, p. 38)

Rate of
Temperature
Loss

0.7C/min
30-40C

Table 6.2.Continued

This Study
Desulphurization
Method

Literature Source

Observation

Rate of
Temperature
Loss
2F/min

CaO injection
Hoesch (in 66,
p. 8-21)
Inland (in 66,
p. 16-10)
J & L (in 66,
p. 7-19)

2''C/min
38F/17 min
20 min

Total Cycle
Time
17-20 min

94

silicon content of the hot metal remains unchanged through

this stage.
The computer program used to model the external
desulphurization stage is summarized in flowchart form in
Figure 6.3.
The first step in the logic, after initialization
and dimensioning, is the reading of input data for the
particular case under study.

The first line of data con

tains the cost in $/pound for the three reagents being

considered; commercial grade calcium carbide, mag-coke,
and powdered lime.

The second line shows the purity of

both the CaC2 and mag-coke, as weight per cent of the

contained reagent in their respective purchased commodities.
The third line contains cost/ton for hot metal (used to
calculate the portion of stage cost due to hot metal loss),
and the standard hot metal temperature drop expected from
the blast furnace runner to the BOF transfer ladle without
any external desulphurization.
In this study, 200F was used for the standard
temperature loss, as this figure is close to that observed
in industrial practice by Edgar (92).

The final eight lines

of data contain the range of possible values for the four

input and the four output variables.
After data input, the program calculates a base
cost for each of the four options which covers labor.

95
START
INPUT REAGENT
COSTS, STANDARD
TEMPERATURE LOSS, ETC
UNES: 68-94

CALC. FOR 5 LEVELS

OF CaC? ADDITION WITH
KR STIRRER
UNES: 200-209

CALC. BASE CONSTANT

COSTS FOR 5 BASIC
OPTIONS
1 PLUNGE MAG COKE
2 PLUNGE MAG COKE
C0C2 INJECTION
CaCp KR STIR
CaO INJECTION
LINES: ri8-l35

CALC. FOR 5 LEVELS

OF CaO INJECTION
LINES; 213- 220

DO LOOP OVER ALL VALUES

OF INPUT HOT METAL WEIGHT
DEFINE INDEX OF
OVERALL 4-COMPARTMENT
INPUT VECTOR
DEFINE OUTPUT INDEX
FOR EACH OF 18 OPTIONS
LINES I 227 - 271

SET 3 INPUT VARIABLES

HOT METAL SULPHUR,
SILICON, TEMPERATURE
UNES: 145-153

ENTER STAGE COSTS AND

TRANSFORMATIONS FOR
18 OPTIONS IN TABLES
UNES; 273- 274

CALC. PART OF OUTPUT

VECTOR AND STAGE
COST/TON HM FOR
1 PLUNGE MAGCOKE
LINES: 170-175
CALC. FOR 2 PLUNGE
MAGCOKE
LINES; 179-183

CALC. FOR 5 LEVELS

OF CaC2 INJECTION
LINES: 187-196

NO

/ LAST \
/COMBINATION ^
OF 3 INPUT
STATE
VARIABLES,
\LINE: 277 /

OUTPUT TABLES
LINES: 291- 313

STOP

Figure 6.3.

Flowchart of External Desulphurization Model

96

capital, maintenance, and all other expenses except the

reagent cost which is handled separately.
Basically, a reagent cost is first calculated for
a standard case of desulphurizing one ton of hot metal from
0.043 to 0.018% S using mag-coke.

Using data from numerous

sources in the Proceedings of the Symposium on the External

Desulphurization of Hot Metal (66) the above costs are then
expressed as percentages of this base case reagent cost.
As an example, the charge per ton of hot metal for
the wear and replacement of the refractory bell used in
mag-coke plunging is 11.4% of the charge per ton for the
mag-coke reagent consumed in the standard case.

More

definitive information and a table listing all other costs

can be found in the chapter on costs.
After the cost calculation step, the portion of the
input state vector corresponding to hot metal sulphur,
silicon and temperature is set using a nested do-loop
configuration.

The program does not consider input hot

metal weight for this initial part of the program.

This is

because the first three components of the input state, in

combination with any one of the decision variable alterna
tives, will allow calculation of the corresponding first
three parts of the output vector regardless of the hot metal
weight being considered.

This allows the logic to pass

through the calculations for the reagents added for a base

one ton of hot metal, to the bottom, where another do-loop

97

iterates over all possible values of the hot metal weight.

Here the cost per ton of hot metal is then converted to
the cost per ton of steel, since at this point it is not
knovm how much hot metal will actually be called for in
the BOF.
Finally, the last steps in the program are the
changing of costs from the basis of one ton of hot metal to
the new hot metal weight, and the filling out of the stage
cost and transformation tables.
Should calculations for another combination of the
first three input variables be required, the program logic
returns to the triple do-loop.

If all combinations have

been considered, then the tables are output and the program
stops.

CHAPTER 7
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE STEELMAKING
Since its development in 1952, the BOF has quickly
replaced the open hearth as the primary means of steel
making.

This development has come about for several

reasons.
First, tap-to-tap times are shortened considerably
from the 8 to 12 hours common for the open hearth to
approximately 1/2 hour for the BOF.

Secondly, the BOF

requires no fuel, relying instead on the sensible heat of

the charged hot metal and the heat realized from the
exothermic oxidation of carbon, silicon and other elements
dissolved in the hot metal.

While this aspect of the

process means that the BOF lacks some of the flexibility

of the open hearth in the amount of scrap which can be
charged per heat, it also means that the sulphur input is
limited to that originally charged to the furnace with the
hot metal and scrap.
Figure 7.1 depicts, in a qualitative way, the
factors which can influence the production rate in a
typical BOF.

The requirement that the sulphur load on the

furnace be minimized is fundamental to higher production.

Gillum (93) described the benefits derived by decreasing
98

INCREASED BOF PRODUCTIVITY

AT LOW TURNDOWN SULPHUR

INCREASED
DESULPHURIZING
ABILITY

HIGHER
IRON
YIELD

HIGHER HOT
METAL
MANGANESE

IMPROVED
HEAT
BALANCE

INCREASED
ORE OR
SCRAP INPUT

FEWER REBLOWS
AND LOWER
CHARGE-TO-TAP
TIMES

LOWER SLAG
VOLUME

LOWER
SLAG FeO

LOWER
SLAG
VISCOSITY

LESS LIME
REQUIRED

LOWER
BASICITY
ACCEPTABLE

LOWER SULPH'UR

LOWER
SULPHUR
IN HOTMETAL

Figure 7.1.

LESS BLAST
FURNACE
SLAG
CHARGED

INPUT

TO BOF

LOWER
SULPHUR
SCRAP

LOWER SULPHUR
IN FLUXES AND
FERROALLOYS

Factors Governing Productivity in tfle BOF

100

hot metal sulphur from 0.035% to 0.015%.

Heats diverted for

sulphur decreased from 25% to 3%, raw steel yield increased

from 88.6% to 89.1%, and average charge-to-tap time
decreased from 37.4 to 36.1 minutes.

Additionally burnt

lime, spar and ferromanganese consumption and the number

of ingots later diverted dropped.

The incentive to charge

low-sulphur hot metal is certainly clear.

While the effect of sulphur on depressing BOF
productivity can properly be termed "operational," there is
also the obvious fact that less sulphur charged means lower
sulphur in the final steel product.

Gillum (93) showed a

relationship between turndown sulphur and hot metal

composition as
''^turndowB =
+ {0.00108/%Mnjjj,)

(7.1)

McNamara (94) and Koros (in 66) also reported the linear
dependence between hot metal sulphur and steel sulphur, but
the slopes of their data were approximately 0,10 and 0.40,
respectively.
The Battelle study (1) reported both an overall
mass balance and a sulphur balance for the BOF, which
showed steel scrap contributing 0.14 pounds of sulphur in
the production of one net ton of raw steel when using a 70%
hot metal/30% scrap practice.

This is compared to the 0.47

pounds present in the hot metal, 0.08 pounds in the burnt

101

lime, and 0.01 in the ferroalloys.

To limit sulphur input,

the contribution from each of these materials must be

minimized.

Scrap for low-sulphur heats must be selected

judiciously, particularly if there is a chance of contamina

tion from prompt resulphurized scrap.
McNamara (94) presented a graph that was somewhat
counter to the implications of the Battelle study, indi
cating that final steel sulphur was virtually independent
of lime sulphur, over a fourfold sulphur increase.

Cer

tainly, with lower-sulphur hot metal, less lime is

required, and in turn the effect of sulphur-bearing lime
is minimized.
The one area of sulphur ingut which was neglected
in the Battelle sulphur balance is the inadvertent charging
of blast furnace slag to the EOF.

As Kristiansen and

Hartmann (95) and Rounsevell and Robins (96) mention, the

most meticulous practice must be followed in skimming off
this slag.

On page 5-24 of reference (66) McNelis showed

that, starting with 0.025% sulphur hot metal, a practice

with no blast furnace slag typically would finish at
0.020% S.

When the charge includes 383,000 pounds of hot

metal and 10,000 pounds of blast furnace slag at 1.5 to

2.5% S, the final sulphur level under similar conditions
is 0.035%.
With respect to desulphurizing ability, the BOF
with five orders of magnitude higher oxygen potential than

102

that found in the blast furnace hearth simply cannot compare

with the blast furnace.

Enhanced desulphurization can

occur, however, by increasing the slag basicity ratio.

As an example, Gillum (93) shows an inverse linear relation
ship between ladle sulphur and tap slag ratio of Ca0/Si02.
Numerous authors

C.96-99.). have written about the

observed effect of hot metal manganese on turndown sulphur,

with some differences of opinion noted.

From analysis of

over 3,000 heats, Kristiansen and Hartmann (95) observed

0.002 to 0.003% lower sulphur values in heats starting with
over 1.2% manganese as compared with those starting at less
than 0.85% Mn.

They attributed this effect to the fluxing

action of the MnO formed in the blow.

Gillum (93) also suggested that desulphurization is
improved somewhat by increasing slag FeO, although this
would be difficult to explain on thermodynamic grounds.
In the case of the BOF, the kinetics of sulphur
removal also assume particular importance.

Gillum (93)

found a direct correlation between the number of reblown

heats and the hot metal sulphur.

This can be traced, in

part, to an effect noted in a plot by McNamara (94).

maximum value of tap slag basicity ratio is observed when

lime containing 20% minus 20 mesh material is used.
Increasing the average lime size likely slows the de
sulphurization reaction by offering less reacting surface
area and by decreasing the rate of dissolution of lime into

103

the slag.

On the other hand, further decreasing of the

average lime size decreases the slag basicity; but in this

case the basicity ratio drop probably is due to entrainment
and subsequent loss of the lime fines into the gas cleaning
system during lime addition.
7.1

Thermochemical Basic Oxygen Furnace Model

The model developed for this study to describe BOF

performance is based on correlations of industrial data
from several literature sources (66, 93, 94) coupled with
the heat and mass balance charge calculation model presented
by Pehlke (lOD).
The flowchart in Figure 7.2 depicts the logic
employed.

Expected values of turndown manganese and

sulphur are calculated using equations developed from data

shown in Gillum (93).

Also, an initial slag basicity ratio

is calculated for the required aim turndown sulphur using

Equation (7.2) that was developed from the data shown in
Figure 1 of McNamara (94):
B-Ratio = Steel S/((0.710496 Steel S) - 0.00774)

(7.2)

A solution to both the heat and iron mass balances

is then determined in an iterative manner, followed by a
check on the predicted output sulphur.
Three parameters described by Gillum were used for
estimating the output sulphur value.

Each of the three

graphical relationships between the dependent parameter

104
STMT
START

i
READ INPUT DATA,COSTS,ETC.
LINES: 15-46

SET INPUT MVRIABLES

HOT METAL SULPHUR
MM SILICON
HM TEMP.
LINES: 67-75

INITIALIZE SLAG BASICITY AS

FUNCTION OF AIM SULPHUR
LINE: M8

STMT
30

OXYGEN REQUIRED
LINES : 209-214
ENTHALPY OF ALL STREAMS
LINES :227-238
ENERGY TO MELT SCRAP
LINEi 239

MASS a
NERGY BALANCES
CONVERGED?
LINE: 243

CALCULATE PREDICTED STEEL

SULPHUR
LINES :277-3I6

PREDICTED
SULPHUR AGREE
WITH AIM SULPHUR?
LINE: 328

CALC. MOLES CHARGED TO

FURNACE
LINES: 171-178

INCREMENT SLAG BASICITY BY

AMOUNT PROPORTIONAL TO
DISTANCE FROM AIM SULPHUR
LINES: 340-347

STMT

PERFORM IRON BALANCE

MOLES SLAG OXIDIZED
LINES: 190-194
WT.LIME TO CHARGE
UNE; 195
SLAG F0
LINE: 200
ORE
LINE :202

BRATIOs
APPROACHING
LIMIT?
LINE : 357

PRED.
SULPHUR
LT
AIM SULPHUR?
^LINE:

LAST
INPUT
VECTOR ?
INE : 500

IRON
BALANCE
CONVERGED?
LINE: 205

OUTPUT TABLES
LINES: 502- 509
/'SLAG
BALANCE
CONVERGED?
LINE:207

STOP

STMT

Figure 7.2.

Flowchart for BOF Model

CALC
STAGE COSTS
LINES: 394-427

105

variables (mentioned below) and the single independent

variable of slag basicity ratio was reduced to a mathe
matical equation using a least-squares statistical curve
fitting program.
The first of the turndown sulphur predictions
requires solution of a sulphur balance based on "pounds of
sulphur removed per ton of burnt lime charged."

Within

limits, this latter quantity was expressed as a power

function of the basicity ratio.
SRTBL = 0.655 * (B-Ratio^')

(7.3)

The second and third quantities"partition ratio of sulphur

in the slag to sulphur in the steel" and "per cent
desulphurization"were best fit with forms of the
hyperbolic function.
SRATIO = 13.67 - (25.7/B-Ratio)

(7.4)

PDS = B-Ratio/((-0.0293 * B-Ratio) + 0.198)

(7.5)

The predicted turndown sulphur is calculated using a

weighted average of the three values.

The two quantities

which rely on a sulphur material balance (SRTBL and SRATIO)

were each given twice the weight of the third (PDS).
If the two values of predicted turndown sulphur and
final steel sulphur requirement agree, then final predic
tions are made for the average charge-to-tap time, the

106

ferroinanganese addition required, and the stage costs

associated with this case.

The program then continues to

the next input/decision state combination.

If the two values do not agree within a tolerance
range, the basicity ratio is incremented in the proper
direction.

It is compared to the limits for industrial

practice which are taken to be 2.1 to 4.2, and if the limit

check is acceptable the energy-mass balance is solved again.
Should the basicity approach either of the limits,
a comparison is again made between the required and pre
dicted values; if the predicted sulphur is lower than that
required, the output state is termed acceptable and final
calculations are made for this case as well.

On the other

hand, if the last check finds the predicted sulphur to be

over the required final steel sulphur value, then an
infeasible case has been encountered and the next input/
decision combination is considered.

CHAPTER 8
COST MODELS
8.1

Coal Preparation Cost Model

Because of the structure of the coal-stage modeling

equations, both the direct and the fixed costs are
explicitly treated as distinct quantities in determining
the optimal plant configuration for a given aim sulphur
level.
In the earlier discussion of the coal stage model
it was shown that the equations are written so as to find
the plant having the lowest hourly cost while satisfying
the constraints on the hourly tonnage requirement, the aim
sulphur and ash levels, and the relationships between the
various size fractions.

Thus part of the required input

to the MINT matrix is an estimate of the hourly capital cost

for each of the alternative unit operations that could be
part of the optional solution.
These capital cost figures are determined in the
CALC subroutine using three steps.

First, the anticipated

hourly feed coal tonnage in each of the size ranges is

estimated by assuming that the overall plant will operate
at 70% clean coal yield by weight.

Dividing the total

required tons/hr of clean coal by this 70% yield factor

107

108

results in prediction of the total feed coal rate.

In

turn, multiplying this figure by the fractional amount of

each of the coal sizes being considered will result in a
prediction of the tons/hr of feed coal within each of the
given size ranges.
For example, if the plant is sized to produce 500
tons/hr of clean coal, then approximately 500/0.7 = 714
tons/hr of feed coal will be required.

Further, if the

size distribution of the coal is described by a RosinRammeler distribution with the absolute size constant,
X = 30 mm and the size distribution constant, n, equal to
0.90, then the weight per cent of + 1/4" coal will be
approximately 75%.

Thus it can be estimated that the

hourly tonnage of + 1/4" ("L") size coal to the plant will

be 535 tons/hr.
The second part of the capital cost estimation is
then to simply multiply the tons/hr of feed coal within a
certain size by the capital cost factor in dollars/ton-hr
for the corresponding washing process being considered.

The

various capital cost figures used for this study were

developed from Singh (101) and Aker (102).

They are sum

marized in Table 8.1 in approximate May 1978 dollars.

The final step is to convert this total capital
cost figure for the given process into an hourly amount by
assuming a 15-year depreciable life, 260 days operation per
year, 13 hours per day, and a 10% salvage value.

109

Table 8.1.

Approximate Capital Costs in $/Ton-Hr for

Various Coal-Washing Processes (May 1978)
Based on data from Singh (101) and Aker (102).

Coal Size Fraction

Coal Washing Option

Capital Cost
$/ton-hr

- 35 m + 100

2 stage hydrocyclone
table
spiral
flotation

11,800
12,000
11,760
14,000

-1/4" + 35 m

jig
dense media cyclone
2 stage hydrocyclone
table

10,000
10,700
9,900
10,000

+1/4

dense media vessel

jig
dense media cyclone
2 stage hydrocyclone
chance cone
table

7,875
7,500
8,025
7,425
7,500
7,500

The direct operating costs, which are the second

part of the overall cost, are determined by estimating the
components listed in Table 8.2.

For any given unit

operation there are two operating costs calculated.

One

is the direct cost per ton of clean coal from the process,
and one is the direct cost per ton of refuse.

The figure

for clean coal operating cost includes all parts shown in

Table 8.2 except for refuse disposal, while the refuse cost
includes all the factors except shipping.
The feed coal cost is read by the program from
input data.

For most runs a figure of $20/ton was used as

110

Table 8.2.

Direct Operating Costs Considered in CoalWashina Model

Feed coal cost

Reagents

Water

Heavy media

Taxes and insurance

Power

Factory supplies

Shipping

Refuse disposal cost

the cost of the feed coal with the given size distribution.
It is assumed that this covers the purchase of the coal,
including mining and size reduction costs.
Total direct cost for water is eatimated using
5<:/l,000 gal of process water, along with the required water
consumption figures shown in Table 8.3.
Reagents for the flotation options and consumption
of heavy media also are included in this table.

Lien (103)

estimated the cost of heavy media magnetite at 4<:/lb

including shipping.
Having calculated the depreciable capital, it is a
simple matter to determine expected yearly property tax and'
insurance costs, which are estimated at 1.5% of the total
capital investment.

Maintenance supplies also are found,

using a factor of 0.5% of depreciable capital.

Power costs are determined as a factored amount of
total direct costs.

Thus all direct costs are calculated

Table 8.3.

Water Requirements, Flotation Reagent Costs, and Heavy Media

Consumption (May 1978)
Water
Requirement
Tons H20/Ton Feed

Coal Size
Fraction

Coal Washing
Process

-35 + 100 m

2 stage hydrocyclone
table
spiral
flotation

0.75
0.5
0.5
1.8

jig
dense media cyclone
2 stage hydrocyclone
table

1.8
0.52
0.72
0.48

dense media vessel

jig
dense media cyclone
2 stage hydrocyclone
chance cone
table

0.5
1.75
0.5
0.69
1.5
0.46

flotation

1.8

-14" + 35 m

+1/4"

-100 m

Flotation
Reagent Costs
$/Ton Feed

Heavy
Media Loss
Lb/Ton Feed

0.50
0.8

0.7
0.75

0.50

112

at this point, even though the capital cost is handled

separately.

The labor cost for each option is neglected

later, since it is assumed direct labor will be approxi

mately constant for all options.
Shipping cost for the clean coal is estimated as the
product of the transportation cost (DPTNMI) in $/ton-mile
and the distance over which the coal is to be shipped
(DISTNC); both of these also are part of program input.
Finally, the coal refuse handling cost/ton is
treated as constant, irrespective of the process used.

On

page 16-31 of Coal Preparation (28), 1968 costs are

described for a 230,000 ton/yr tailings operation.

Present

costs are estimated as $3,300 for the 330 gallon-per-minute

plunger pump (104), $2.21/ft for the 4,000 feet of schedule
80 pipe (105), and $l,000/acre for the assumed 100 acres of
disposal property.

Installed cost for the pump and pipe is

assumed to be 2.5 times the expected purchase price.

Totaling the capital cost amounts and depreciating this
sum over 10 years straight line results in a depreciation
cost figure of $0.0569/ton of refuse.

The reference also

gave power consumption as 69,500 kwh/yr.

cost would then be $0.0905/ton.

At 3<:/kwh, power

Finally, updated labor,

maintenance and maintenance material for the example case

total approximately $0.1404/ton refuse.

The sum of these

three costs, $0.288/ton refuse, is then added to the other

113

costs mentioned above, resulting in the total direct cost

figure for refuse disposal.
The three cost estimates now determined for each
alternative process, i, operating on size fraction, j, are:
1.

The capital cost (CY^j) in $/hr, if the process is

part of the optional solution.

2.

The clean coal operating cost (CX..c) in $/ton of

clean coal.

3.

The refuse operating cost (CX..) in $/ton of

refuse.

These three cost coefficients, as'well as the predicted

sulphur and ash levels for process i operating on size j
are passed to the MINT subroutine.
In the MINT algorithm, the sulphur and ash contents
both are entered twice in the initial tableauonce in the
"less than or equal to an upper limit" constraint, and again
in the "greater than or equal to a lower limit" constraint.
On the other hand, the cost coefficients are entered in
the tableau only once.

The depreciated capital cost figure

acts as coefficient to the 0-1 integer decision variable

called

contrast, the cost per ton for clean coal

product is the coefficient to the continuous decision

variable corresponding to the tons per hour of clean coal
product from the given coal washing operation, within a
given coal size fraction.

The cost per ton for coal refuse

similarly is the coefficient for the continuous decision

114

variable representing tons per hour of refuse generated by

the given coal washing process from a given size fraction.
In summary, the objective function equation for
only two possible washing operations for the "z" coal size
a table (T) or jig (J)would have the six parts shown in
Equation (8.1);
mm Z = CY^2 *

'-^TZC * ^TZC

^^JZ * ^JZ

^^TZR * ^TZR

^^JZC * ^JZC

^^JZR * ^JZR
(8.1)

subject to:

Y e 0,1
X e R^
X^0
8.2

Coke Stage Cost Model

The cost model for the coke stage conceptually is

very similar to the cost models for the blast furnace and
the BOF.

The biggest difference lies in the fact that a

single parameter, CSTOVN, which is input in the coke pro

gram, allows calculation of the relative economic effects
resulting from changes in the production rate.
This parameter represents the effect on the stage
return due to coke oven productivity.

If a set of operating

conditions causes the coking time to be longer than the

assumed standard case of 17.8 hours, then the stage return
suffers.

The defining standard conditions are those on

p. 154 of The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel (59)

115

where operating data are presented for a single slot in an

industrial coke oven.
The charge coal in the example from reference (.59)
has characteristics similar to those considered in the
present study: moisture 8%, ASH 7% (dry basis), volatile
matter (VOLMAT) 27% (dry basis), fixed carbon tFIXCPlB) 66%,
bulk density 45.3% (dry basis).
With a flue temperature of 2 335F and a structural
3
volume of 1,035 ft /slot, it was reported that each charge
required 25.6 tons of moist coal.
For this 17.8 hour base case, the following computa
tions make use of the mass balance relationships described in
the earlier coke model chapter:
24/17.8 = 1.35 pushes/day = 34.52 tons wet coal/day
= 31.76 tons dry coal/day .
31.76 * 0.73 coke yield = 23.18 tons coke/day
The estimated tar and gas yields can then be determined by
knowing the carbonization temperature:
CARBTP = FLUTMP - 325 = 2010F.
Yield of tar from the volatile matter at this
carbonization temperature is determined relative to the
22.71% of the volatile matter assumed for the base case.
According to Smith and Reynolds (52), the relative tar yield
at~a carbonization temperature other than the 1800F base
temperature can be estimated by:

116

PCTAR = 1.0 - [0.00095 * (CARBTP - 1800F)] = 0.8005

Knowing that there are 1,840 lb of dry coal in one ton of
wet coal at 8% moisture, the total tar yield and the.
inversely related gas yield can now be found by:
WTTAR = PCTAR * 0.2261 * 1840 * VOLMAT = 89.92 lb tar/
ton coal
WTGAS = [(1-PCTAR)(0.2261) + 0.733] * 1840 * VOLf^T
= 386.6 lb gas/ton coal
Finally the total BTU's in this gas with assumed molecular
weight of 9.52 and heating value of 540 BTU/ft3 is defined
by: BTUGAS = WTGAS * 359 * 540/9.53
= 7.863

10^

BTU/ton coal

Next, the underfiring requirement for these operat

ing conditions is found to be:
UNDKFR = 1088 + 176(coking rate - 1.0)
+ 0.54 (CARBTP-1850) + 2(XCSAIR-25)
+ 15 (coal moisture - 6.0)
g
= 1204 BTU/lb moist coal or 2.41 x 10 BTU/ton
coal
Thus, by difference between the BTUGAS and UNDRFR figures,
the excess BTU's from one ton of charged coal are 5.45 x 10^
BTU/ton.
Converting all these figures to a daily basis in
which 34.52 tons of coal are coked in one slot, the revenue,
credits and costs can be determined if the prices quoted

117

below reasonably represent the values for the material

streams into and out of this stage:
Revenue/day = 23.18 tons coke at $100/ton
= $2,318.00/day
Credit for tar = $89.92 lb/ton coal * 34.52 tons coal
* $150/ton tar = $232.80/day
Credit for excess gas = 5.45 x 10

BTU/ton coal * 34.52

tons coal * 1.43 x 10~^ $/BTU = $269.28/day

[Note: The value for coke oven gas per BTU is
assigned the same value as natural gas (106).]
Cost for coal = 34.52 tons coal at $55/ton = $l,898/day
Finally, if it is assiamed that under this base set
of operating conditions the profit realized only by this
stage should be 15% of the revenue from sale of coke, then
the daily fixed cost per slot can be estimated;
Profit = 0,15 * 2318 = $347.70/day or $10.07/ton coal
Total fixed cost/day = total revenue from coke + net
credit for coke oven gas + credit for tar before tax profit - variable cost for coal
= $547.40/day-slot
Now, increasing the flue temperature to 2400F
results in a predicted 16.45 hour push-to-push time and the
following results, which are compared with the standard case
described above:

118

Revenue/day = 25.08 tons coke at $100/ton = $2,508/day

Fixed cost

574/day

Credit for tar

232/day

Credit for excess gas

295/day

2,055/day

Cost for coal = 37.36 tons coal

at $55/ton

Under these conditions the daily profit has in

creased to $407/day or $10.89/ton coal.

The difference in

profit per ton ($10.89 - $10.07 = $.82) is divided by the

difference in coking time (17.8 - 16.45 = 1.35 hours) to
result in a CSTOVN figure of $0.62/ton coal-hour.
Similarly, by decreasing the flue temperature to
2300F, the figures are:
Push-to-push time: 18.63 hours
Revenue = 22.15 tons coke at $100/ton = $2,215/day
Fixed cost

574/day

Credit for tar

232/day

Credit for excess gas

255/day

Cost for coal = 32.98 tons at $55/ton =

1,814/day

Daily profit = $314/day or $9.51/ton coal

The hourly cost figure then becomes ($9.51-10.07)/(17.818.63) = $0.67/ton coal-hour.
Averaging the two values results in the CSTOVN
figure of $0.65/ton coal-hour used in the present study.

119

8.3

Blast Furnace Cost Model

As mentioned earlier, the cost developments for the

blast furnace, the coking stage and the BOF are quite
similar in approach.

For the blast furnace, returns accrued

due to production rate changes are quantified by considering

a time period of one day and then assuming a base produc
tion schedule.

For this study all runs assumed that the

standard case was a production rate of 2,600 tons per day in

a furnace similar to the 26-1/2 foot furnaces on which
Quigley and Sayles (47) based their production rate equa
tions.

It was then assumed further that before-tax profit

for this stage only as a per cent of revenue would be 15%,

when the furnace is charged with the burden described in
detail in Blast Furnace--Theory and Practice (73).
At this point a simple accounting model can be
developed by summing the charges at current market price
for all material entering the furnace, determining the
credit for blast furnace gas generated, establishing
revenue and in turn profit, and finally solving algegraically for the daily fixed cost.

This fixed cost repre

sents the charges which are debited to the blast furnace on

a daily basis, irrespective of the furnace production rate.
In the classical accounting approach this should include
only such items as property tax, interest, depreciation and
overhead; but in the present study this fixed cost figure
was expanded to include direct labor (which can be treated

120

as constant over quite wide ranges in production rate), gas

cleaning, slag disposal, and the other items not included in
variable costs.
The following symbols and modeling equations can be
used to clarify the approach to determining daily fixed
cost.

The characteristics of the material streams (weights,

temperatures, etc.) were taken from p. 808 of Blast

FurnaceTheory and Practice (73).
BSPRDX

- Net tons of hot metal (NTHM)/day for base

production schedule (2,600 NTHM/day)

BSPROF

- Before-tax income for blast furnace expressed

as per cent of credits generated for base hot
metal production (15%)

BSMETW

- Base case metallic burden in Ib/NTHM. Only

one metallic burden is considered by aggre
gating the compositions of the various
metal-bearing materials such as pellets,
sinter, and ore (3,191.3 Ib/NTHM)

BSMETC

Base-case metallic burden cost (.$35/ton)

BSCOKW

- Base coke rate (1,253 Ib/NTHM)

BSCOKC

- Assumed metallurgical coke cost for base case

only C$100/ton)

BSSTNW

- Base stone charge, which is the aggregate

weight of both limestone and dolomite (491.9
lb/ton)

BSSTNC

- Cost for base stone charge C$8/ton)

BSBNKW

- Standard case injection of bunker C oil

(0 Ib/NTHM)

BSBNKC

- Cost for bunker C oil ($0.05/lb)

HMCST

- Expected price for hot metal, taken as 5% less

than market price for cold pig iron as
suggested by Decker, Nilles, and Dauby (107)
($192/ton)

121

BSTMPF

- Base-case blast temperature (1,464F)

BSGRN

- Base-case moisture in blast [21 grains H~0/

standard ft^ (SCF) blast]

BSWIND

- Base-case wind rate (56,300 SCF/NTHM)

CSTBFG

- Cost for blast furnace gas generated ($1.0 x

10~/BTU); assumed at 2/3 cost/BTU for blast
furnace stove gas

CSTSTG

- Cost for gas used in heating stoves ($1.5 x

10~6/BTU); assumed equal to natural gas
price/BTU (106)

REVENU

= BSPRDX * HMCST = $499,200/day

PROFIT

= (BSPROF/100) * REVENU = $74,880/day

VCMET

- Variable cost/day for metallic burden (BSMETW/2000) * BSMETC * BSPRDX = $145,204/

day

VCCOK

= (BSCOKW/2000) * BSCOKC * BSPRDX = $162,890/day

VCSTON

= (BSSTNW/2000) * BSSTNC * BSPRDX = $5,116/day

VCINJ

= BSBNKW * BSBNKC * BSPRDX = 0

VCSTOV

- Variable cost per day for the gas required to

heat the stoves so as to realize the required
blast temperature. A multiple linear regres
sion equation was developed from the nomogram
on p. 973 of Blast FurnaceTheory and
Practice (73) which relates the required
BTU/min (REQGAS) to the blast moisture, wind
temperature in degrees F, and the wind rate
(BSSCFM) scaled by a factor of 1000.
BSSCFM = BSWIND * BSPRDX/(24 * 60 * 1000)
= 101.65
REQGAS = 10,000 * (-249.4 + 0.75 * BSGRN
+ 2.06 * BSSCFM + 0.167 * BSTMPF)
= 2.20 * 10^ BTU/min

VCSTOV

= REQGAS * 60 * 24 * CSTSTG = $4,755.4/day

122

CRGAS

- Credit/day for the blast furnace gas

generated at 3 tons/ton of hot metal, using
the gas analysis on p. 69 of The Making,
Shaping and Treating of Steel (59) with
molecular weight = 29.13 and heating value
=92.6 BTU/ft^.

CRGAS

= 3 * BSPRDX * 2000 * 359 * 92.6 * CSTBFG/29.13

= $17,803/day

VARCST

- Total direct costs per day

= BCMET + BCCOK + BOSTON + VCINJ + VOSTOV
= $317,965/day

TFC

- Total fixed cost per day

= (REVENU + CRGAS) - (PROFIT) - (VARCST)
= $124,158/day
This daily fixed cost is determined before the start

of the run and input to the blast furnace model along with
the other data.

Then during the run, when the program has

solved for the materials requirement at each calculated

production rate, the total daily cost (CSTPDY) is found by
simply adding the input TFC and the determined net variable
material costs (VARCST-CRGAS).

The total cost/ton (RETPTN)

is this total daily cost prorated back over the expected

tonnage level.
Let the following symbols represent the variables
that are either fixed or determined for a specific set of
conditions at the blast furnace (i.e., at some given inter
section of the Xgp input vector and the

decision

vector).
PRODXN

- Determined production rate (NTHM/day)

BRDNWT

- Fixed constant weight of metallic burden for

the case under study, with the aggregate
composition as given in data input

123

WTSTON

- Determined vjeight of stone required, with

composition as given in data input

BUNKER

- Fixed constant weight of Bunker C oil injected

in Ibs/NTHM

SCFM

- Fixed wind rate corresponding to the SCFNTM

component of the decision vector

BLTMPF

- Fixed blast temperature in degrees F

corresponding to the BLTMPK component of the
decision vector

BUNKER

- Fixed constant injectant rate (Ib/NTHM) for

case under study

GRBLST

- Fixed constant blast moisture

CSTBRD

- Cost for aggregate metallic burden in study

Then:
VCMET

= (BRDNWT/2000) * CSTBRD * PRODXN

VCSTON

= (WTSTON/2000) * BSSTNC * PRODXN

VCINJ

= BUNKER * BSBNKC * PRODXN

SCFM = SCFNTM * PRODXN/(24 * 60 * 1000)
REQGAS = f(GRBLST, SCFM, BLTMPF) as before

VCSTOV

= REQGAS * 60 * 24 * CSTSTG

VARCST

= VCMET + VCSTON + VCINJ + VCSTOV

CRGAS

= 3 * PRODXN * 2000 * 359 * 92.6 * CSTBFG/29.13

CSTPDY

- cost per day

= TFC + VARCST - CRGAS

RETPTN

- total costs/NTHM
= CSTPDY/PRDXN

Note the important point that the cost for coke is

not considered in this calculation as it will be handled by
the dynamic programming algorithm in its search for the
optimal solution.

124

8.4

External Desulphurization Cost Model

The development of stage returns for external

desulphurization takes the form of estimating three separate
costs for each alternative means under consideration.
The first is the cost for the amount of reagent
consumed; this can be calculated in a straightforward manner
when reagent price and reagent consumption are known.

The

second is a cost corresponding to the predicted loss of hot

metal during this stage by splashing or by subsequent loss
with a viscous slag.

The third is a grouped cost figure

corresponding to labor, capital and non-reagent material

charges.
To the level of accuracy in the literature data,
these last two costs, when expressed on a per-ton-of-hotmetal basis, can reasonably be treated as fixed with respect
to both reagent consumption and yearly tonnage of hot metal
treated.
It was shown earlier that the available data on
reagent consumption suggest that an exponential curve
results when plotting the amount of reagent used versus the
ratio of final to initial sulphur levels in the hot metal
(S^/S^).

Thus at constant reagent cost, an exponential

curve results also when plotting cost of reagent consumption

versus this same ratio.

By adding the fixed cost component,

the total cost curve would appear as the reagent cost curve
displaced away from the vertical axis.

125

The relative steepness of the total cost curve is

directly dependent on the magnitude of the "reaction rate
constant" discussed earlier which characterizes the per
formance of each desulphurization alternative.
Figure 8.1 illustrates these cost effects for two
cases.

Curve A would correspond to an alternative with a

higher capital investment requirement than the alternative

with Curve B; but A either uses a less expensive reagent or
utilizes the reagent more effectively so that it has the
lowest total cost when desulphurizing hot metal to a
(Sf/Si) ratio less than the 0.5 shown in this example.
In order to calculate each of the three costs,
certain assumptions must be made.

Approximate 1978 reagent

prices used in this study are: CaC2 at $0.17/lb, CaO at

$0.0175/lb, and mag-coke at $0.93/lb.

Table 8.4 lists both

reagent consumption and reagent cost per ton of hot metal

treated for the 18 options.
Based on the table shown on page 13-11 in reference
(66), the cost derived from loss of hot metal during de
sulphurization is estimated using 0.1% loss for 1-plunge
mag-coke, twice that figure for 2-plunge mag-coke, and 0.12%
for CaC2 using both the KR stirrer and injection.
loss for CaO injection is assumed to be 0.08%.

The metal

The weight

of metal lost is multiplied by the input cost figure for

hot metal ($192/ton) to estimate this portion of the total
cost.

For the prices mentioned this cost works out to be

126

CURVE A

0.5

CURVE B

HOT METAL
SULPHUR
RATIO

0
TOTAL

Figure 8.1.

STAGE

COST

Total External Desulphurization Stage Cost

127

Table 8.4.

Reagent Consiimption and Base Reagent Cost for 18

Desulphurization Alternatives

Option
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Do nothing
1-plunge mag-coke
2-plunge mag-coke
CaC2 injection
CaC2 injection
CaC2 injection
CaC2 injection
CaC2 injection
CaC2 with KR stir
CaC2 with KR stir
CaC2 with KR stir
CaC2 with KR stir
CaC2 with KR stir
CaO injection
CaO injection
CaO injection
CaO injection
CaO injection

Commercial
Reagent Added
lb/ton HM

Contained
Reagent Added
lb/ton HM

Reagent
Cost
$/ton HM
__

1.5
3.0
3.5
4.8
6.3
8.3
11.1
1,2
1.6
2.2
2.8
3.8
10.6
14.4
19.1
25.1
33.5

0.68
1.35
3.0
4.1
5.4
7.1
9.4
1.0
1.4
1.9
2.4
3.2
10.6
14.4
19.1
25.1
33.5

1.40
2.79
0.59
0.82
1.07
1.41
1.89
0.20
0.27
0.37
0.48
0.65
0.19
0.25
0.33
0.44
0.59

128

$0.19 for 1-plunge mag-coke, $0.38 for 2-plunge mag-coke,

$0.23 for both injection of CaC2 and addition by KR
stirring, and $0.15 for lime injection.
The means used to calculate the portion of total
cost corresponding to labor, capital and other items are
summarized in Table 8^2 which coh-'ains data from numerous
sources.
On page 2-11 of reference (66), Potocic and Leewis
described the results Dofasco found when using mag-coke to
Average initial sulphur for their

desulphurize hot metal.

data set was 0.043%, while average final sulphur was

reported to be 0.018%.

Total costs, including mag-coke

reagent, bell and connector cost, and overhead for this

level of desulphurization, were $2.30 in 1975.

According

to this reference, the bell and connector cost and overhead

were estimated to be 30% of the total mag-coke reagent cost;
i.e., 77% of the total cost when using mag-coke is for
purchase of the reagent.

Several other researchers agreed

that capital costs are relatively low for mag-coke.

The capital costs for CaC2 injection or CaC2 KR
stirring are substantially higher.

On page 2-17 of the same

reference, Leewis estimated that only 20% of the total cost

using CaC2 injection is accounted for by the reagent cost.
Cecere, on page 13-13 of reference (66), estimated the
capital cost for mag-coke to be 40 to 50% of that required
in the other processes.

129

Relying primarily on the published 1975 cost of

$2.30/ton hot metal for mag-coke desulphurization and the
detailed table presented on page 13-11 of reference (66),
the Table 8.5 data were developed.

They are assumed to

represent costs for each process relative to the reagent

cost for the standard case mag-coke desulphurization of hot
metal from 0.043 to 0.018% S.
When using the mag-coke price of $0.93/lb, the
reagent cost for the standard case is approximately $1.80/
ton hot metal.
Summing the figures shown for mag-coke in Table 8.5,
it is found that these fixed cost values are approximately
46% of the mag-coke reagent cost, or $0.83/ton hot metal.
Not considering metal loss, the total cost figure then works
out to $2.63/ton hot metal, which agrees reasonably well
with the comparable reported $2.30 value.
In the same manner, the fixed cost for CaC2 added
using the KR stirrer would be found using the sum of the
figures in its column; i.e., 82% of the standard case magcoke reagent cost, or $1.49/ton hot metal.

For this

standard case, CaC2 reagent consumption would be

[In(0.043/0.018)]/P K = 2.05 lb CaC2 reagent/ton hot metal,
when using K = 0.5(lb contained CaC2/ton hot metal) ^ and
reagent purity, P = 0.85.

At the 1978 cost of $0.17/lb, the

reagent cost is $0.35/ton hot metal; or the total estimated

cost would be $1.49 + 0.35 + 0.23 = $2.07/ton hot metal.

Table 8.5.

Fixed Costs for Desulphurization Alternatives per Ton of Hot Metal as

Per Cent of Mag-coke Reagent Cost for Standard Case

Cost
Labor
Depreciation

KR Stir CaC2

CaC2
Injection

Mag-coke

CaO
Injection

7.2

7.2

7.2

7.2

41.8

37.8

18.9

37.8

Refractory for
process

2.6(impeller)

7.9(lance)

Refractory labor

1.3

5.2

6.3

5.2

.13(stirrer)

Electricity

.38

.06

.06

.01

.19

,19

Slag disposal
Thermo couples
Ladle lining loss
Reagent cost
Total cost

1.3(rods)

7.9(lance)

Metal components

Maintenance

11.3(lance)

11.4(bell)

11.3(lance)

12.5

6.3

6.3

2.5

2.5

1.3

2.5

.25

.25

.25

13.9
82.5%

7.0
85.6%

46.5%

variable

variable

100.0%
14,6.5% .

.25
7.0
85.6%
variable

131

8.5

BOF Cost Model

The BOF cost model was developed in much the same

way as that for the blast furnace, with the largest apparent
difference in the time period assumed for the basis.

While

the blast furnace operates in a largely continuous manner,

the BOF is distinctly a batch operation.

Thus the lowest

time period of repetition for the BOF was taken as one

week, since during any one week the maintenance and down
time will be roughly the same as during any other.
As in the blast furnace, a base operating condition
must be defined in order to calculate the total weekly
fixed cost figure before execution of the program.

The

symbols, equations and values used in the present study for

determining the weekly fixed cost are summarized below.
STLCST

- Figure representing the market price for raw

liquid steel at input specifications of
temperature and composition ($280/ton)

BSPROF

- Assumed before-tax profit for the BOF steelmaking stage only, as a per cent of revenue,
when consuming raw materials at their
respective market prices and producing steel
at the base production rate (15%)

BSCHTP

- Base-case charge-to-tap time (35 minutes)

CONSTM

- Expected time period between tapping one heat

and charging the next (10 minutes)

DOlArWHR

- Total weekly BOF downtime for maintenance and

repair (16 hours)

BSWTHM

- 190 tons hot metal/standard case heat

BSWTSC

- 77 tons scrap/heat

BSWTOR

- 0 tons ore/heat

132

BSWTLM

- 14 tons lime/heat

BSWTSP

- 1 ton spar/heat

BSWTFM

- 0.9 ton ferromanganese/heat

BSBLOT

- 19 minutes oxygen blow per heat at OXYFLO

Scfm flow rate

CSTHM

- $192/ton hot metal

CSTSC

- $88/ton hot metal

CSTOR

- $30/ton ore

CSTLM

- $35/ton lime

CSTSP

- $91/ton spar

CSTFM

- $355/ton ferromanganese

CSTSCF

- $0.0025/Scf oxygen

AVLMIN

- minutes of time per week available to make

steel = (7 * 24 * 60) - (60 * DOWNHR) = 9,120
minutes

TAPTAP

- Tap-to-tap time when operating under the

standard conditions = BSCHTP + CONSTM = 45
minutes

HTSPWK

- Heats produced per week under standard con

ditions = AVLMIN/TAPTAP = 202.66 heats/week

REVENU

- Weekly credit for steel produced

^
- HTSPWK * BSHTSZ * STLCST = $1,418 x 10 /week

PROFIT

- (BSPROF/100) * REVENU = $2,128 x 10^/week

VCHM

- Variable cost per week for hot metal consumed

under standard conditions
^
= BSWTHM * CSTHM * HTSPWK = 7.393 x 10 /week

Similarly;
VCSC

= BSWTSC * CSTSC * HTSPWK = $1,373 x 10^/week

VCOR

= BSWTOR * CSTOR * HTSPWK = $0

VCLM

= BSWTLM * CSTLM * HTSPWK = $9.93 x lO'^/week

133

VCSP

= BSWTSP * CSTSP * HTSPWK = $1.84 x 10^/week

VCFM

= BSWTFM * CSTFM * HTSPWK = $6.48 X 10^/week

VC02

= BSBLOT * CSTSCF * OXYFLO * HTSPWK = $2.12 X

10 /week

VARCST

- Weekly total direct cost for input streams

= VCSC + VCOR + VCLM + VCSP + VCFM * VC02
= $9.16 X lO^/week

TFC

. - Total fixed cost per week

= (REVENU) - (PROFIT) - (VARCST) = $2.90 x
10/week
During the BOF model run, this input weekly TFC is

added to the weekly direct costs calculated after solution

of the heat and material balances for each input state
vector, X_^_, resulting in the total weekly cost for BOF
~-i3Ur
operation. This total weekly cost (COST) is divided by the
tons of steel per week produced under this given set of
operating conditions to result in the total cost per ton of
steel for the BOF stage only.

In a manner similar to the

above discussion on fixed cost calculation, the following

symbols represent fixed or known quantities.
TONSTL

- Fixed heat size (tons)

CHGTAP

- Calculated charge-to-tap time when operating

under the given conditions

TSCP

- Calculated tons of scrap charged/heat

TORE

- Calculated tons of ore/heat

TLIME

- Calculated tons of lime/heat

TSPAR

- Calculated tons of spar/heat

TFEMN

- Calculated tons of ferromanganese/heat

BLOTIM

- Calculated minutes of oxygen injection/heat

134

Then:
CHGTAP + CONSTIM

TAPTAP
HTSPWK

AVLMIN/TAP TAP

VCSC

TSCP * CSTSC * HTSPWK

VCOR

TORE * CSTOR * HTSPWK

VCLM

=z

TLIME * CSTLM * HTSPWK

VCSP

TSPAR * CSTSP * HTSPWK

VCFM

TFEMN * CSTFM * HTSPWK

VC02

BLOTIM * CSTSCF * HTSPWK * OXYFLO

VARCST

VCSC + VCOR + VCLM + VCSP + VCFM + VC02

COST

VARCST + TFC

DOLPTN

Cost/ton of steel for the BOF stage only

= COST/(HTSPWK * TONSTL)

Note that here too the cost for the material coming
into this stage (hot metal) is not calculated as part of the
stage return; that portion of the cost will be reflected in
the dynamic programming solution.

CHAPTER 9
RESULTS
9.1

Explanation of Procedure

The main objectives of this study can now be

enumerated as:
1.

Quantifying the cost effect of including some form

of external desulphurization in the processing
sequence of a contemporary steel plant.

2.

Assessing the sensitivity of the choice of optimal

path for sulphur removal with respect to the deci
sion variables for each stage.

3.

Determining the sensitivity of the choice of optimal

desulphurization path with respect to the various
important costs in the operation, particularly the
price of energy.
Two specific coals were used as the basis for this

study.

Characteristics of these two coals were taken from

reference (35).

Washability curves are shown in Figures 9.1

and 9.2.
Coal A is a very low sulphur coal (0.74% total S)
with moderate ash content (15%).

Pyritic sulphur content

of the feed coal was only 0.24% S while organic sulphur

totaled 0.50% S.

Coal D was chosen because of its much

135

136

% WITHIN *0.10
SPECIFIC

GRAVITY

25

25

50

d 50
>

CUMULATIVE ASH
FLOAT
CUMULATIVE PYRITIC
SULPHUR FLOAT

75

7S
SPECIFIC GRAVITY

100

1.8
1.6
1.4
SPECiriC GRAVITY

2.0

5.0

1.0

100

10.0 %ASH-*
I

2.0

% PYRITIC SULPHUR-

Figure 9.1.

Washability Curve for Low-Sulphur Coal A

% WITHIN 0.10
SPECIFIC GRAVITY

o
J
u.

25

25

I-

UJ
o
tc

CUMULATIVE
ASH FLOAT

S 50

50
CUMULATIVE
PYRITIC SULPHUR
FU&AT

UJ
>

75

75
SPECIFIC GRAVITY

100

2.0

0
0

Figure 9.2.

1.8I

1.6
1.4
SPECIFIC GRAVITY

10

100

/ASH-^

1.0
2.0
3.0
%PYRITIC SULPHUR^

Washability Curve for High-Sulphur Coal D

137

higher total sulphur content (3.44%).

Pyritic sulphur in

this coal was 2.92% S, while the organic sulphur added

another 0.52% S.

Total ash in this coal was somewhat lower

than in the first, at 12.5%.

It was felt that these two coals would effectively
cover the range in sulphur levels expected in high-volatile
coals destined for a coking blend.

The blend coal, added

at 30% in runs with both Coal A and Coal D, was assumed to

have 1.5% S and 8% ash (dry basis), and 7% moisture.
In the descriptions which follow, each of the model
runs used one of four sets of material costs.

The set of

costs corresponding to the base case is shown in Table 9.1.

This table also contains three cost sets other than that
used for the base case.
Next, Table 9.2 summarizes the runs which were made
to study the important aspects of the system.

Each run

number gives the identifying letter of the subject coal.

Also included is the cost set used for each run.
At this point four notes of caution in the interpre
tation of results must be made.
It should be reiterated that the system response,
summarized in each of the tabular reports, represents the
results one would expect from average or long-run condi
tions.

By necessity, the models are constructed to yield

expected-value steady-state results, and as such they

138

Table 9.1.

Cost Description

Stage

Coal (5)

Cost (1978)
Base-case Material Costs, Set 1
Coal, as preparation
plant feed
$20/ton (dry basis)
Wages, hourly labor
$10/hour
Shipment of clean coal $0.01/ton mile

Coke (4)

Blast Furnace
(3)

External Desulphurization
(2)

BOF (1)

Cost Data Sets Used in Model Runs

Coke oven gas

Tar

$1.43/MMBTU
$150/ton for 0.6% S
tar

Blend coal (1.5% S,

8% ash, 7% moisture)

$30/ton (dry basis)

Iron burden, aggregate

Stone, aggregate of
limestone and dolomite
Bunker C oil for tuyere
injection
Blast furnace gas, low
calorific value gas
generated
Stove gas, fir firing
preheat stoves
CaC2 reagent (as
purchased at 85% contained CaC2)
Mag-coke (as purchased
at 45% contained Mg)
Powdered lime
Hot metal (for metal
loss calc.)
Scrap, aggregate cost
Ore, as charged
Burnt lime
Spar
Oxygen (98% purity)
Ferromanganese

$35/ton
$8.00/ton
$0.05/lb
$1.00/MMBTU
$1.50/MMBTU

$0.17/lb
$0.93/lb
$0.0175/lb ($35/ton)
$192/ton
$88/ton
$30/ton
$35/ton
$91/ton
$0.0025/scf
$355/ton

139

Table 9.1.Continued

Cost Data Sets Used in Model Runs

Cost Description

Stage

Cost (Hypothetical)
Increased Cost of Coal^ Set 2
All costs the same as Set 1, except:
Coal (5)
Coke (4)

Coal, preparation
plant feed

$40^ton Cdjry basis),

Blend coal

$50/ton (dry basis)

Increased Price of Energy for Limestone Calcination, Set 3

All costs the same as Set 1, except:
Blast Furnace
(3)

Aggregate stone cost

$8/ton (same as
base case)

Powdered lime

$0.024/lb

Burnt lime

$48/ton

External Desulphurization
(2)

BOF (1)

Doubled Price of Energy, Set 4

All costs the same as Set 1, except:
Coal (5)

Coal, preparation
plant feed
Shipment of clean coal

Coke (4)

Coke oven gas

Blend coal

Blast Furnace
(3)

Bunker C oil injectant

Blast furnace gas
Stove gas

External Desulphurization
(2)

CaC2 reagent
Mag-coke reagent
Powdered lime
Burnt lime

$40/ton (dry basis)

0.015/ton-mile
2.86/MMBTU
50/ton (dry basis)
0.10/lb
2.00/MMBTU
3.00/MMBTU
0.34/lb
1.86/lb
0.024/lb
48.00/ton

140

Table 9.2,
Run No./
Coal
lA
3D
7D
4D
21D
20D
25D
2A
12A
lOA
13A
15A

Costs
Used

Summary of Model Runs

Parameters Studied

Base case (no external desulphurization

allowed)
Set 1 Feasibility of direct shipping Coal D
Set 2 Direct shipping Coal D at higher coal price
Set 1 Optimal route for washed Coal D under base
conditions and with 0.025% aim in steel
Set 3 Effect of increased lime price on optimal
route from 4D
Set 4 Effect of doubled energy costs and credits
on optimal route from 4D
Set 1 Cost for optimal route to 0.050% S maximum
in finished steel
Set 1 Optimal route for washed Coal A under base
conditions and with 0.025% S aim in steel
Set 1 Effect of no external desulphurization on
optimal route from Run 2A
Set 4 Effect of doubled energy costs and credits
on optimal route from 2A
Set 4 Effect of no external desulphurization on
optimal path from lOA
Set 1 Cost for optimal route to 0.050% S maximum
in finished steel
Set 1

141

should not be expected to predict dynamic results with

changing variables.
Secondly, the structure of the discrete Dynamic
Programming algorithm suffers from the unfortunate tendency
to require enormous data storage for the stage return and
transformation tables when the number of state variables
becomes moderately large.

This problem, which Bellman

aptly termed the "curse of dimensionality," results in some

loss of resolution of the predicted state variables.
Considering the blast furnace, for example, it was
found that the largest set of tables that could be accom
modated in the central memory of the CYBER 175 on which the
runs were made is approximately 18 by 350.

The main program

and subroutines, the two-dimensioned tables, and the

required system programs for loading and execution were
constrained to be less than the 130,000 octal word central
memory size.
Thus with four input state variables to the blast
furnace, each of the four could have at most $'350 = 4.3 = 4
levels.

In fact, the 350 available rows were allocated such

that the coke sulphur state variable may have 9 levels, coke
ash may have 4, while the coke stability and coke weight
would be allotted only 3 levels each.

In this case the

number of rows =9*4*3*3= 324, which can be accom

modated in the tables.

142

Similarly, the four output state variables from the

blast furnace must have levels allocated such that their
product is less than 350.

Normally this was done by assign

ing 9 possible values to hot metal sulphur, 4 to hot metal

silicon, and 3 each to hot metal temperature and hot metal
weight per ton of steel.
Because there are only 3 possible temperature levels
to which hot metal temperature can correspond, then the 3
levels must cover the entire feasible range of output
temperatures and in so doing they must be spread apart by
25F.

With the 3 possible values at 2630, 2655, and

2680F/ then a predicted runner temperature from the blast

furnace heat and material balances must be reassigned one
of these three values.

This is done in order to make the

transformed output state from the blast furnace conform to

some value of input state to the following external desulphurization stage.

If the predicted temperature is

above the 2667.5 midpoint between 2655 and 2680 (e.g.,

2670)/ then it is called 2680.

If another predicted

temperature is only 5 lower but on the other side of the

2667.5 midpoint
value of 2655F.

then it must be assigned the output state

Because of this effect, the actual values

predicted by the models are shown at each stage.

Thirdly, the costs reported are not total production
costs.

In several cases labor costs were not included,

since changes in the sulphur removal practice will not

143

affect labor costs.

Several other costs as well have been

left out because they are not influenced by practice changes.

Finally, the level of accuracy in the cost data must
be considered in the interpretation of results.

For

instance, a difference of $0.05 in the cumulative cost

figure to a given stage should not be considered significant.
These close alternative routes also are noted in the
presentation of results.
9.2

Tabular Result Summaries

In the tables which follow, the results of the model

runs are presented in a schematic form.
than one table is shown.
identified as optimal.

For most runs, more

The first table details the path

If any other paths were found to be

close to the optimal case in overall cost, then these are

presented separately in another table.

Finally, if there

are alternate schemes of interest, they are shown for

comparison with the optimal case.
9.2.1

Base Case Definition

The first table, labeled as Figure 9.3, is con

sidered to be the base case.

The blast furnace data shown

were chosen to approximate the operating data shown on page

806 of Blast FurnaceTheory and Practice (73).

As was

mentioned earlier, these data were used originally in the

present study to define the compositions of the metallic
burden, coke, flux, blast, and other material streams.

SPIRAL @ 1.49
DM CYC @ 1.77
DM CYC 0 1.65
FLOTATION

2450 op PLUE TEMPERATURE

8 % MOISTURE
90 % PULVERIZATION
0.68 %S

0.74 %S
15 %Ash

COAL
PREP
&SHIP

BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1088 K BLAST TEMP

4.3 %ASH

COKE
W/
BLEND

0.50 TON

7.6 %ASH
52 STBL

BLAST
FCE

0.48 ton
COKE
$ 12.36

$t6,82

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2504
STONE CHARGE 475
COKE RATE 1258
SULPHUR
0.023
RUNNER TEMP 2665

0.75 ton

0.75 ton

0.7l%s

$.76.73

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

Nothing

0.025%s

EXT
DES

0.80 %Si

0.02^S
BOF
0.80 %si
2440 01

2665 op

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.025 %S
LIME 67-3
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.7
MIN

RUN NUMBER lA
COST SET 1
TOTAL COST $ 176.71
Figure 9,3.

$ 94,44

Base Case (No External Desulphurization Allowed)

145

For the most part, predicted output state values for

the blast furnace agree with those shown in the data.

One

possible exception is the hot metal sulphur content, which

will be discussed at a later point.
Using this Figure 9.3 as an example, the following
discussion will address the means chosen for presentation
of results.
Starting on the left, the initial total sulphur and
ash contents corresponding to coal A are shown.

For this

example the decision variables for the coal preparation and

shipping stage, D^p/ are identified as: operating the
spiral at 1.49 specific gravity-of-separation on the -35
+100 m material, using dense media cyclones at 1.77 and 1.65
for the - 1/4" + 35 m and +1/4" size fractions, respec
tively, and relying on flotation for the -100 m material.
By operating in this manner, the clean coal product shipped
to the coke plant is predicted to have an output vector,
Y^p, of 0.68% S and 4.3% ash.

In order to satisfy the blast

furnace coke rate requirements later, the 0.50 ton of this

clean coal, which is also shown as part of the Y^p vector,
is blended with'0.21 ton of the blend coal at the coke oven.
Total estimated cost for this stage,

is $12 36 which

covers the purchase of the required feed coal, washing it

using the processes identified in the decision variable
column, and shipping the 0.5 0 ton of dry coal which are
corrected to an assumed 8% moisture.

146

The decision variables for the coking stage, D_^^,

L.Ux\
are defined to be; 2450F flue temperature, 8% charge
coal moisture, and a pulverization level of 90% at - 1/8".
Corresponding to this combination of the decision variable
vector and the input state vector of the blended coal, is
which is predicted to
CCJi\
be: 0.7 1% S, 7.6% ash, and stability of 52. The 0.48 ton of

the output state of the coke,

coke resulting from the coking of 0.50 ton of the subject

coal and 0.21 ton of blend coal is sufficient to satisfy the
blast furnace coke requirement in the production of 0.75
ton of hot metal.
^COK'

Estimated net cost for the coke stage,

$-6.82, or a credit of $6.82, since the value of

gas and tar produced is credited against the direct operat

ing costs.
The blast furnace decision variables, Dgp/ that
approximately correspond to the data in reference (73), are
shown as: burdening the furnace such that the estimated
slag basicity is 1.05, running the blast fans so that 56,500
scf of blast is delivered for every ton of hot metal
produced, and arranging the stove firing so that a blast
temperature of 1088K (1500F) can be maintained.
The blast model predicts that when coke of the given
composition is charged and when the decision variables are
set as shown, then the discrete hot metal output state
variables,

closest to the predicted values from the

147

model are: 2655F runner temperature, 0.80% Si, and 0.025% S.

Stage cost,

is estimated as $76.73.

Shown underneath the blast furnace block are the

actual values predicted by the model.

Production rate is

estimated to be 2504 tons per day versus the 2589 tons per
day from reference (73).

Required stone charge is calcu

lated as 475 Ib/NTHM compared with the 492 Ib/NTHM from the
data.

This difference probably arises from the 1.05

basicity used in the model, as opposed to the 1.07 observed

in the data.

The coke rate of 1258 Ib/NTHM is only slightly

higher than the 1253 Ib/NTHM shown in the reference data.

The 0.023% S in the hot metal shows the largest
deviation from the reference data.

The two equations for

sulphur partition ratio predict values betv7een 60 and 80,

which are much higher than the value of 22 calculated from
the reference data.

It must be recognized also that the

only sulphur load to the furnace is the 0.40 lb.of sulphur

in the metallic ore burden and the 9.6 lbs of sulphur in
the coke.

No sulphur-containing oil or tar is considered

to be injected, and no BOF slag with its relatively high

sulphur content is assumed to be charged.

Thus the pre

dicted value of 0.023% S would appear not to be improbable.

Finally the last predicted variable shown, the
2665F runner temperature, is somewhat low when compared
with the 2710F value shown in the literature source.

This

148

value could be adjusted by a minor change in the heat loss

term.
Next, considering the external desulphurization
stage, the "do-nothing" decision variable was chosen to
represent typical industrial practice.

The only change in

the state of the hot metal is the 200F drop expected from
the runner temperature at the blast furnace to the tempera
ture in the BOF transfer ladle.

A stage cost of $0.00 is

associated with this decision alternative.

The last stage, which corresponds to the BOF, has
the predicted values of ladle sulphur, lime, and charge-totap time as shown.

The 0.025% S ladle sulphur is the level

expected from charging both 0.75 ton of hot metal with

exactly 0.025% S and the amount of scrap with 0.040% S
called for by the heat and material balances.

The lime

charge is the amount required to satisfy the basicity

requirement in the steelmaking slag.

As discussed in the

cost chapter, this lime addition and the 36.7 minute chargeto-tap time are considered in calculating parts of the total
BOF stage cost, RgQpf which in this case is estimated to
be $94,44,
Adding the five stage costsr^^p, r^QK' ^BF' ^ED'
and TgQpresults in the reported $176.71 total cost.

It

must be emphasized again that this figure is simply a

relative figure that does not contain certain costs held
constant from one processing scheme to another.

It should

149

not be misconstrued as representing all the costs engendered

in the production of one net ton of steel.
9.2.2 Run 3D, Feasibility of Direct
Shipment of Coking Coal
Run 3D, summarized in Figure 9.4, illustrates the
optimal route chosen for Coal D when values for the output
vector for each stage were defined such that direct shipping
of the coal could be a feasible alternative if cost effec
tive.

Note, however, that v/ashing the coal is identified

as part of the optimal scheme and direct shipping without

washing is not.

This same coal will be discussed again in

Run 4D, where the state vector grid was changed to allov/
finer definition of coal and coke sulphur and ash contents.
The alternative of direct shipping of coal was shown to be
non-optimal in all cases, and in subsequent computer runs
that alternative was eliminated.
Comparing this route with that of the base case in
Figure 9.3, the biggest differences appear to be the higher
blast furnace slag basicity, and the higher blast tempera
ture.

Note that in this case external desulphurization is

not included in the optimal path.

Because of the higher

blast furnace slag basicity, hot metal sulphur is expected

to be somewhat lower,
input.

despite the higher coke sulphur

The higher blast temperature apparently is the

primary cause for the increased blast furnace production

rate and the lower coke rate.

SPIRAL @1,51
DM CYC @1.52
DM CYC @1.52

2450 "F FLUE TEMPERATURE

8 % MOISTURE
90 % PULVERIZATION

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
11^-3 OR BLAST TEMP
Nothing

FLOTATION
1.0 %S
%S
12

COAL

%Ash

0.95%s

0.75 ton

0.75 ton

4.0 %ASH

COKE

8.0 %ASH

0.02C^S

0.02C^g

0.48 ton
COAL

BLEND

52

0-80 %Si

0.80

2665 Op

2455

STBL

0-4'^ TON
COKE
$ 11.72

$ -6.40
BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2541
STONE CHARGE 557
COKE RATE 1281
SULPHUR
0.023
RUNNER TEMP 2659

op

94.16

$ 76.55

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024%S
LIME
56
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4 MIN

RUN NUMBER 3D
COST SET 1
TOTAL COST $ 176.02
Figure 9.4.

Optimal RouteCoal DDirect Ship Possible

151

Total cost for this optimal route is shown to be

$176.02.

This can be compared with the close conditions

presented next in Figure 9.5.

For the top two schemes in Figure 9.5 the path
through the coal preparation, coking, and hot metal produc
tion stages would be precisely the same as the optimal case
of Figure 9.4.

Here the change occurs in the decision

variable chosen for the external desulphurization stage.

Considering the top path, if it is elected to
externally desulphurize using 10.6 lbs of injected lime,
then the hot metal from the blast furnace would be de
sulphurized from the same 0.020% S to an expected value
represented by 0.010% S.

Despite the increased cost

associated with the reagent for external desulphurization,

the total two-stage cost of $1.41 + $93.07 = $94.48 is only
$0.32 more than the optimal two-stage cost of $94.16.

This

is derived from the fact that the lower-sulphur hot metal

charged to the BOF will require less lime as well as less
average steelmaking time in the BOF.
For $0.48 more than the optimal two-stage cost, one
would be able to use CaC2 with the KR stirrer.

The expected

output state from the external desulphurization stage for

this method would be represented by the same vector used
for the 10.6 lbs lime case.
The third scheme depicts the $0.79/ton of steel
higher cost expected in a change in blast furnace practice.

ADDED COST
ABOVE OPTIMAL

STAGE DECISIONS

4
(

$0.32) more

SAME

SAME

SAME

CaO inj.
10.6 lb

) more

SAME

SAME

Mo external
desulphurization
(

$0.79
) more

SAME

SAME

SAME

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1088 K BLAST
BLAST

$ 1.57

0.75
0.020 %S

$ 77.34

$0.09
) more

SAME
COKE

0.95%S
8.0 %ASH
_52 STBL
0.47TON
COKE

$-6.31

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 OK BLAST

BLAST

0.75 TON
020%S

$ 93.07
0.75 TON
0.020%S
6.80 %9i
2455 F
$ 94.16

0.80

2350F FLUE TEMP.

8% MOISTURE
90% PULVERIZATION

$ 93.07
0.75 TON
0.010%5
0.80 %Si
2415 F

CaCj-KR
2.2 lb

2640

BOF

$ 1.41

$0.48
(

EXT
DES

0.75 TON
0.010 %S
0.80 %Si
24X5

Nothing
0.75 TON
0.020%S
0.80 %Si
2455 F

$ 76.55

RUN 3D
Cost Set 1
CLOSE ALTERNATE CONDITIONS
Figure 9.5.

Close Alternate Conditions to Optimal Route3D

$ 94.16

153

By dropping the blast temperature from 1143K to 1088"K

while leaving basicity and windrate constant, the model
predicts the hot metal to be tapped with similar sulphur
and silicon contents but with lowered runner temperature.
As in the optimal case, no external desulphurization is
chosen, while the vector representing the hot metal charged
to the EOF is the same.
Finally, the bottom

path described with four blocks

shows the small $0.09 increase in total cost associated with

a change in the coke stage decision variables.

By taking

the flue temperature from the highest value possible, 2450F,

to the intermediate value of 2350F, leaving unchanged the
charge moisture and pulverization level, the coke is expected
to leave this stage with the same sulphur, ash, and
stability levels as before.

The lowered flue temperature

will result in longer coking time and diminished gas yield;

this will cause the expected stage credit to be $6.31
versus the $6.40 shown in the optimal path.

The remainder

of the path is the same as shown for the optimal case in

Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.6 depicts the lowest cost scheme found
feasible when direct shipping is required for Coal D.

In

comparing this route with the optimal shown in Figure 9.4,

some interesting results are uncovered:
1.

Even though no expense for coal preparation is con

sidered, the cost for the coal preparation and

2450 "F FLUE TEMPERATURE

0-95

56500 SCF/NTHM

8 % MOISTURE

2.0 %S

3.4
3.4

%S

12

%Ash

COAL
PREP
&SHIP

12.0

%ASH
TON
COAL

0.53

$ --2,05

11.24

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2198
STONE CHARGE 561
COKE RATE 1481
SULPHUR
0.103
RUNNER TEMP 2636
$9.72

0.75 TON

COKE 14.0 %ASH

W/
STBL
BLEND 52
0.53

11^3 OR BLAST TEMP

90 % PULVERIZATION

Nothing

BASICITY

BLAST
FCE

TON
COKE
$ ,82.32

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
"F

0.100%S
0.74

%Si

CaC2-KR

3.8 lb

0.75 TON

EXT
DES

2640 op

0.020%S
BOF
0.74

%Si

2375 op

$ 1.77

'

$ 92.46

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.023%S
53.3
LIME
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4

MIN

more than optimal

RUN NUMBER
COST SET

3D
1

TOTAL COST $ 185.74

Figure 9,6.

H
Lowest-Cost Direct Ship RouteCoal D

155

shipping stage is virtually the same in Figure 9.6

and in Figure 9.4.

This is derived from two facts:

Ca) the blast furnace requires a much higher coke rate

when using coke with high ash and sulphur contents.
For the production of one ton of steel, 0.53 ton of
subject coal is needed versus the 0.48 ton necessary
when the coal is low in sulphur and ash.

Part of the

greater expense for this stage, therefore, is due to

the purchase of this additional coal.

(ID) The second

part of the increased cost is derived from the added

expense in shipping the larger tonnage,
2.

The decision variables for the coke oven are the same
in both cases; however, the stage return is
significantly lower in the direct ship case.

This is

related to the ash content, and the fact that

increased ash displaces fixed carbon and volatile
matter in the coke oven change.

While coke yield

increases, the gas and tar credits suffer.

3.

For the blast furnace, slag basicity is chosen to be

0.95 while blast temperature remains at the highest
allov/ed.

In this case, hot metal temperature and

therefore silicon content will be slightly less due

to the large slag volume resulting from the coke
ash.

Production rate and attendant credits for top

gas fall, causing the stage cost for the blast

furnace to be $5.77 higher per ton of steel.

156

4.

As the hot metal sulphur is very high at 0.100% S,

the strongest desulphurization with CaC2-KR is found
to be part of the least expensive route for the
remainder of the sequence.
Total cost for this least expensive direct-ship path

is predicted to be $185.74, or a substantial $9.72/ton of

steel more than had the coal been prepared as defined in the
optimal solution, Figure 9.4.
9.2.3 Run 7D, Feasibility of Direct Shipment
Under Doubled Coal Price
Turning now to Figures 9.7 through 9.9, results from
Run 7D will be considered.

Here the input data were the

same as those for Run 3D, with the exception of the coal
prices.

The price for the subject feed coal to the prepara

tion plant was doubled from $20 to $40/ton, while the blend
coal cost at the coke oven was increased from $30 to $50/
ton.

It was hypothesized originally that the doubled coal

price would tend to penalize the coal preparation plant for

the feed material misplaced to the refuse, and thereby make
direct shipping a more attractive alternative.

Instead, the

tradeoffs are negligible.

Figure 9.7 is a siimmary of the optimal path found
for Coal D when using Cost Set 2.

The same route was chosen

both here and in Figure 9.4 where lower-priced coal was used.

SPIRAL @1.51

2450

DM CYC @1.52

8
90

DM CYC @1.52

op PLUE TEMPERATURE

1.15 BASICITY

% MOISTURE
% PULVERIZATION

56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST TEMP

No external
desulphurization

FLOTATION
1-0 %S

0.95 %s

0.75 TON

0.75 ton

4 %S

4.0 %ASH

COKE

Q-Q %ASH

0-020%S

0.020^5

12.0 %Ash

0.48 TON
COAL

BLEND

52

0.80 %Si

0.8 %Si

2665 F

2455 "F

STBL

0.47 TON
COKE
21.99

$ -2.29

76.55

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2541 ' TPD
STONE CHARGE 557 LB/NTHM
COKE RATE 1281 LB/NTHM
SULPHUR
0.023 %S
RUNNER TEMP 2659 F

$ 94.16
BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024%S
LIME
56
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4 MIN

RUN NUMBER 7D
COST SET 2
TOTAL COST

190.41

Figure 9.7.

OptimumCoal DDoubled Coal Cost

ADDED COST
ABOVE OPTIMAL

STAGE DECISIONS
3

0.75 ton
$0.32
(

) more

SAME

SAME

SAME

CaO inj.
10.6 lb

EXT
DES

^ 1.4;

$0.48
(

) more

SAME

SAME

SAME

No external
desulphurization
) more

SAME

CaC2 KR
2.2 lb

0.75
0.020
0.80
2640

SAME

$ 93.07

$ 1.57
TON
%S
%Si
F

$ 93.07
0.75 TON

0.020%S
0.80

2455 F

$ 77.34
2350FFLUE TEMP,
'MOISTURE
PULVERIZATION

0.75 TON
0.020%S
0.80%Si
2665 F

SAME
COKE
.TON
COKE
$-2.20

94.16

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST

$0.09
) more

0.75TON
0.020%S
0.80%Si
2455F

$ 76.55

RUN 7D
CLOSE ALTERNATE CONDITIONS
Figure 9.8.

BOF

0.75 TON
0.010%S
0 . 8 %Si
2415 "F

1-15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1088 K BLAST

$0.79
{

Q.QIQ
0.80 %Si
2415

Close Alternate Conditions to Optimal 7D

$ 94.16

2450
8

Nothing

90

F FLUE TEMPERATURE

0.95 BASICITY

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST TEMP

% PULVERIZATION

3.4 %S

2.0 %S
14.0 %ASH

12.0 %ASH

CaC2-KR 3.8 lb

0.75 TON

0.75 ton

0.100%s

0.02(^S

BLAST

0-53 TON

BLEND

52

STBL

0-74 %si

%si

COAL
0.53 TON
COKE
20.99

$ 2.49
BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2198
STONE CHARGE 561
COKE RATE 1481
SULPHUR
0.103
RUNNER TEMP 2636

$ , 82.32

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

2640 F

2375 F

92.46

$ 1.77

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.023 %S
LIME
53.3
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4

Lowest direct ship at doubled coal price

$9.62 more than 7D optimal

RUN NUMBER

7D

COST SET 2
TOTAL COST $ 200.03
Figure 9.9.

Lowest-Cost Direct Ship RouteDoubled Coal Price

MIN

160

The cost effect of doubled coal price is found in the

$14.39/ton of steel total cost differential between the two
runs.
Figure 9.8 shows the close alternate routes from
Run 7D.

They turn out to be the same as those reported in

Figure 9.5 for Run 3D.

As would be expected, the added

costs away from the optimal are essentially the same in both
runs since the coal prices are the only cost data that were
different.
Figure 9.9 is the lowest-cost feasible direct ship
route for doubled coal price.

It, too, results in the same

decisions as the lowest-cost direct ship route from Run 3D,

but with the differential in total cost between this route
and its corresponding optimal at $9.62.

In comparing this

with the $9.72/ton steel premium paid for direct shipping at

the base coal prices, it is seen that with constant feed
coal quality and for coke oven gas valne constant, coal
preparation with its accompanying loss in coal yield remains
the economical choice as coal prices increast at these
levels, but its advantage decreases.
9.2.4 Run 4D, Optimal Route with Direct
Shipping Not Considered
Turning now to Figure 9.10, the optimal sequence
for prepared Coal D using Cost Set 1 is again shown, but
from a different run, 4D.

The possible values of state

variables were chosen so that more resolution was possible

SPIRAL @1.51

2450

DM CYC @1.52

DM CYC @1.52

90

F FLUE TEMPERATURE

1.15 BASICITY

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM

% PULVERIZATION

1143 K BLAST TEMP

FLOTATION
1.06%S
3.4

%S

COAL

4.2 %ASH

COKE

%Ash

&SHIP

0.495ton
COAL

BLEND

external
desulphurization
0.75 ton

0.895 %S

0.75 ton

7.45 %ASH

0.020%S

0.020%S r

0.80 %Si

0.80 %Si

2655 F

2480 F

BOF
12.0

52

STBL

0:475 TON
COKE
$ -6.49

$ 12.52

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2573
STONE CHARGE 542
COKE RATE
1264
SULPHUR
0.022
RUNNER TEMP 2661

RUN NUMBER
COST SET

$ 94.48

$ .76.05

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024 %S
LIME 55.9
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME

4D
1

TOTAL COST $

176.56
Figure 9.10.

OptimalWashed Coal D

36.4

MIN

162

in the variables for the perpared coal and for the coke.
This path should be compared with the path from Run 3D
(Figure 9.4).
It can be seen that the decision variables are
precisely the same and the predicted state variable values
are very similar.

The largest differences are found in the

input and output state vectors for the coke stage.

This

is due to the higher resolution available in this run.

The main conclusion to be drawn from this figure remains the
same: coal preparation is an integral part of the optimal
solution.
Figures 9.11 and 9.12 illustrate alternate routes
with calculated costs close to the optimal for this run.

In

Figure 9.11, a drop in coke oven flue gas temperature is

shown to cause a 0.10 drop in stage return.

Somewhat less

gas is needed to heat the slot oven, but productivity also

is reduced, causing the loss in credit.
The other three close routes all employ external
desulphurization, as does the route shown in Figure 9.12.
At the top it is seen that for this case, desulphurization
using lime is $0.17 more expensive than the optimal route.
The $1.41 in stage cost for desulphurization is not offset
by production improvement in the BOF.

The second line shows

the calcium carbide injection option at $0.20 more expense

than the optimal.

ADDED COST
ABOVE OPTIMAL

STAGE DECISIONS

$0.17
(

more

SAME

SAME

0.75 ton
0.010 %S _
0.80 %Si
2430 F

CaO inj.

SAME

10.6 lb

$ 93.24
$0.20
) more

SAME

SAME

SAME

0.75 TON
0.010%S
0.80 %Si
2430 F

CaCo-KR
1.2 lb

1.05 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1088 K BLAST

$0.83
) more

SAME

SAME

CaO inj.
19.1 lb

$ 1.44

0.75
0.030 %S

0.75 TON

0.80

0.80 %&i
2430 F

$76.60

2350OFPLUE temp ,
8% MOISTUP.E
90% PULVERIZATION

$0.10
) more

SAME
COKE

$ 93.24

No external
sulphurization

0.75 TON
0.020 %S
0.80 %Si
2680 F
$ 76.05

$-6.39

o.oias
1.52

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST

0.89^S
7.45 %ASH
52 STBL
0.473rON
COKE

$ 93.24

0.75 TON
0.020 %S
0.80 %Si
2430 F
<

$ 94.48

RUN 4D
CLOSE ALTERNATE CONDITIONS

Figure 9.11.

Close Alternate Conditions to 4D Optimal

OJ

SPIRAL @1.51

2450

DM CYC @1,52

DM CYC @1,52

90

op pLUE TEMPERATURE

0-95 BASICITY

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM

1143 OR blast TEMP

% PULVERIZATION

CaO inj,

25.1 lb

FLOTATION
1.06 %S
3-4 %S

COAL

4.2

%ASH

COKE

0.895 %s

0.75 ton

0.75 ton

7.45 %asH

0.035^3

O.OlO^s

0.85 %si

0.85 %si

2685 F

2430 F

W/
0.465 ton
COAL

12.0 %Ash

BLEND

52

STBL

0.445 TON
COKE
-6.09

$ 11.76

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2573
STONE CHARGE 395
COKE RATE 1202
SULPHUR
~0.035
RUNNER TEMP 2684
$0.07

$ 75.61

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

1.60

$ 93.75

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.016 %S
LIME
59.8
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.9

MIN

more than optimal.

RUN NUMBER
COST SET

4D

TOTAL COST $
Figure 9.12 4

176.63
Close, Alternative to 4D Optimal at Coal Stage

M
cn
>fc.

165

The third sequence in Figure 9.11 describes the

additional expense incurred in running the blast furnace
v/ith lower basicity and blast temperature, using the same
coke vector for input.

In this case external desulphuriza-

tion is not justified.

Figure 9.12 illustrates a close alternate sequence
to the optimal.

By changing blast furnace basicity from

1.15 to 0.95 and introducing desulphurization with powdered

lime injection, the total cost increases by only $0.07.
The reasons for this are the savings in coke and stone:
the lowered stone requirement is evident in the blast
furnace stage cost, while the diminished coke rate has a
positive effect on the coal stage and somewhat less negative
impact on the coke stage due to less credit for gas and tar.
An additional calculation can be made from the data
generated in this run.

It was found that the two-stage

cumulative cost for desulphurization using two-plunge

magcoke plus BOF is $96.85, which can be compared with the
$95.35 for the lov/est-cost route using lime injection.

The

reagent cost at which the total two-stage cumulative costs

would be the same for mag-coke and lime, occurs at a mag
coke cost of $0.26/lb contained Mg.

This is quite different

than the $0.93/lb cost presently assumed.

Figure 9.13 shows the cost effect associated with
blast furnace decision variables other than those chosen in
the optimal case.

The beneficial effect of charging low

0.95
BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTM
1033. K BLAST TEMP
2.01

MORE THAN OPTIMAL

BLAST
FCE

CaO inj.

0.75
0.010

0.75 TON
0.040 %S
0.85 %Si
2680

25.1 lb

op

2430

$ 1.60

$ 77.19

BASICITY
'SCF/NTM
1143' K BLAST TEMP

$ 93.75

1.05

56500

1.03

CaO inj.

0.75 TON
0.025 ~%S
0 . 8 0 ~%Si
2655 -op

MORE THAN OPTIMAL

$ 76.82

10.6 lb

0.75 TON
0.015 %S
0 . 8 0 %Si
2430 "op
$ 1.41

$ 93.33

RUN 4D
COST EFFECT OF BLAST FURNACE DECISION VARIABLES

Figure

9.13.

Cost Effect of Blast Furnace Decision Variables4D

167

sulphur hot metal to the BOF when using external desulphurization, does not affect the increased costs for
reagent and blast furnace productivity drops that are
associated with these feasible cases.
Finally, Figure 9.14 depicts a route which appears
to be the highest-cost feasible means for steel production
using the given coal, Coal D, when direct shipping is not
allowed.

This route was traced manually from the Dynamic

Programming solution to Run 4D.

While it cannot be

guaranteed as the highest-cost path, some interesting

results are noted.
Very little coal preparation was found to be part
of this route.

In addition, the coke stage decision

variables were such that the stage credit was quite low,
due to low productivity and gas production.
Using the predicted coke composition, it was found
that the highest-cost feasible set of decision variables
in the blast furnace are those shown.

Furnace production

rate is depressed somewhat because of the higher sulphur

and ash in the coke and the diminished blast temperature.
In this case the hot metal is predicted to have reTatively
conventional temperature and sulphur levels.
By choosing to use two-plunge magcoke, the 0.025%
sulphur hot metal is desulphurized to a very low value and
changed to the BOF which exhibits a very lov; stage cost.
Nonetheless this does not compensate for the increased

SPIRAL @1.51

2250^op PLUE TEMPERATURE

CYC @1.77
DM CYC @1.65
DM

80

0.95 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM

% MOISTURE
% PULVERIZATION

1033 K BLAST TEMP

2 plunge magcoke

FLOTATION
1.14%S
3.4

%S

0.955 %S

4.95%ASH

COAL

12.0 %Ash

8.05 %ASH
COKE
W/
50 STBL
BLEND

0.525TON
COAL

0.75 TON
BLAST
FCE

0.505 TON
COKE

12.81

-5.71

0.025%S

EXT
DES

0.75 %Si
2655 PF

$ . 78.63

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2394
STONE CHARGE 568
COKE RATE 1328
SULPHUR
0.025
RUNNER TEMP 2647

0.75 TON

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S

0.005%S
BOF
0.75 %Si
2430 OF

3.10

92.74

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.0125%S
LIME
53..2
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP--TIME
35.9

MIN

RUN NUMBER 4D
COST SET

TOTAL COST $ 181.57

Figure

9.14.

Probable Highest-Cost Feasible Route if Coal Preparation Included

I-'
oo

169

desulphurization and blast furnace costs.

Total five stage

cost is estimated at $181.57 or $5.01 more than the optimal.

9.2.5

Run 21D, Increased Lime Price

The processing sequence in Figure 9.15 is the route

determined to have the minimiim total cost when Cost Set 3

is used with its doubled energy expense for lime calcina
tion.

Values of the state variables are observed to be

the same as in the optimal route in Figure 9.10.

The only

difference between this and the optimal route arises from

the $0.37 increase in BOF stage cost due to the increase
in burnt lime cost.
9.2.6

Run 20D, Doubled Energy Costs

Figures 9.16 through 9.18 summarize the results for

Coal D when all energy costs are doubled.

Table 9.2 lists

the price increases for Cost Set 4.

Figure 9.16, the optimal route for this case, is
the same path shown earlier in Figure 9.12, where it was
close to optimal under the base set of costs.

Comparing the

present best scheme with that in Figure 9.10, the total cost
per ton of steel increases by $6.16 due to doubled energy
costs.

The extent of the increase is perhaps not so large

as would be expected, however, because of two things.

First, despite the additional cost paid for the coal, the
coke stage credit increases by over $1.33 due to the
additional value of the coke oven gas that is produced.

SPIRAL 0 1.51

2450

DM CYC @ 1.52

DM CYC @ 1.52

90

op FLUE TEMPERATURE

1.15 BASICITY

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM

% PULVERIZATION

1143K BLAST TEMP

FLOTATION

3.4 %S
12.0 %Ash

1-06%S

0.895%S

0.75 TON

0.75 TON

4.2 %ASH

7.45 %ASH

0.020'^S

0.02(SS

0.80 %Si

0.80 %Si

2680 F

2430 F

0.495TON
COAL

BLEND

52

STBL

0.475 TON
COKE
$

No external
desulphurization

12.52

$ -6.49
BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2573
STONE CHARGE 542
COKE RATE 1264
SULPHUR
0.022
RUNNER TEMP 2661

$ .76.05

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

$ 94.85
BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024%S
LIME
55.9
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4

RUN NUMBER 21D

COST SET

TOTAL COST $

176.93

Figure 9.15.

Optimal for Doubled Energy Costs for Lime Calcination

MIN

SPIRAL @1.51

2450 F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC 01.52

8 % MOISTURE

DM CYC @1.52

0.95

BASICITY

56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST TEMP

90 % PULVERIZATION

CaO inj 19.1 lb

FLOTATION
0.895 %S

1.06 %S
COAL

3.4 %S

4.2

COKE

%ASH

0.465 TON
COAL

12.0 %Ash

7.45 %ASH

BLAST

BLEND
0.445 TON
COKE

$ 22.73

$ -7.82
BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2573
STONE CHARGE 395
COKE RATE
1202
SULPHUR
0.035
RUNNER TEMP 2684

$ 71.96

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

0.75 TON

0.75 TON

0.035%S

0.015%S

0.85 %Sl

0.85 %Sl

2680

2430

$ 1.62

$ 94.23

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020 %S
LIME
59.4
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.0

MIN

Optimaldoiibled energy costs

RUN NUMBER
COST SET

20D

TOTAL COST $ 182.72

Figure

9.16.

Optimal Route for Doubled Costs and Credits for All Energy Sources

SPIRAL @1.51

2450 "F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC @1.57

56500 SCF/NTHM

8 % MOISTURE

DM CYC @1.57

0.95 BASICITY

1143 K BLAST TEMP

90 % PULVERIZATION

CaO inj

19,1 lb

FLOTATION

1-14 %s
3.4 %s
12.0 %Ash

COAL
PREP
&SHIP

4-95 %ASH
0.465 TON

0.75 ton

0.925 %S
8-05 %ASH
COKE
W/
52 STBL
BLEND

BLAST
FCE

$ -7.356
BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2538
STONE CHARGE 407
COKE RATE
1220
SULPHUR
0.036
RUNNER TEMP 2682

0.85 %Si

0-015%s
EXT
DES

2680 F

0.445 TON
COKE
$ 21.90

0.035%S

0,75 ton

$. 72.49

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

BOF
0.85 %si
2430 F

$ 1.62

$ 94.23

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020%S
LIME
59.4
LB/TON
C HARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.0

MIN

$0.16 more than the optimal path for doubled energy costs

RUN NUMBER 20D

COST SET

TOTAL COST $

182.88

Figure 9.17.

Close Alternate Route to 20D Optimal Solution

to

SPIRAL @ 1.51

2450 F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC @ 1.52
DM CYC @ 1.52

BASICITY

56500 SCF/NTHM.

8 % MOISTURE
90

1.15

% PULVERIZATION

1143 K BLAST TEMP

desulphurization

FLOTATION

12.0 %Ash

COAL
PREP
&SHIP

4.2 %ASH

COKE

W/
BLEND

0.495 TON
COAL

7-45 %ASH
52

STBL

BLAST
FCE

r-8,32

$ 72.40

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
STONE CHARGE 542
COKE RATE
1264
SULPHUR
0.022
RUNNER TEMP 2661

RUN NUMBER

0.020%S

EXT
DES

0.80 %Si
2655 F

0.475 TON
COKE
$ 24.19

0.75 ton

0.75 ton

0.895%S

1.06%S
3.4 %S

No external

LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

0.020%S
BOF

0.80 %si
2480 F

$ 94.85

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024 %S
LIME
55.9
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4

MIN

20D

COST SET 4
TOTAL COST $

Figure 9.18,

183.12

Close Alternative Scheme in Run 20D that vjas Optimal Under Base Costs

174

Secondly, the blast furnace stage cost decreases by $76.05 $71.96 = $4.09.

This is directly related to the increased

credit for blast furnace gas which is used in other parts

of the steel plant.

Nonetheless

these two revenues cannot

offset the $10.21 increase in cost at the coal preparation

stage, and the cost for the lime injection.
Figure 9.17 shows an interesting effect that
suggests the v/isdom of moderating the extent of coal prepara
tion as coal price increases.

The scheme in Figure 9.19 is

shown to be only $0.16 more in total cost than the corre

sponding . optimal route in Figure 9.18.

In this route, the

coal is washed to 4.95% ash as opposed to 4.20% ash in the

optimal case.

If we return to the base cost case (Run 4D)

examination of the cost of the same route, in terms of

decision variables, as in Figure 9.19 shows that it is
$0.43/ton of steel more expensive than the optimal solution.
Figure 9.10.

Thus the cost differential in favor of v/ashing

to 4.2% instead of 4.95% has decreased from $0.43 to $0.16/

ton of steel and at some coal price may disappear.
Finally, Figure 9.19 illustrates the stage costs for
the scheme that was optimal under the base cost ,set, but
which now is $0.40 more expensive.

Cost effects of the

higher coke rate required for running the blast furnace at

increased basicity, now outweigh the cost of external
desulphurization of hot metal tapped with higher sulphur
content.

SPIRAL @1,51

2450

. DM CYC @1.52

DM CYC @1.52

90

F FLUE TEMPERATURE

1-15 BASICITY

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM.
1143 K BLAST TEMP

% PULVERIZATION

FLOTATION
1.06 %S
3.4 %S
12.0 %Ash

COAL
PPEP
&SHIP

4.2

0.895 %S

%ASH

COKE
7.45 . %ASH
W/
52 STBL
BLEND

0.495 TON
COAL

0.75 TON
BLAST
FCE

0.475 TON
COKE
$ 12.52

$ -6.49

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2573
STONE CHARGE 542
COKE RATE
1264
SULPHUR
0.022
RUNNER TEMP 2661

0.75 TON

0.020%S
0.80 %Si

EXT
DES

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
"F

0.020%S
BOF
0.80 %Si
24R0 F

2655
$ . 76.05

No external
desulphurization

$ 91.44

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024 %S
LIME
LB/TON
53.8
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
34.1

MIN

Optimal path for unconstrained final steel sulphur

RUN NUMBER
COST SET

25D

TOTAL COST $

173.52

Figure 9.19.

Optimal0.050% S MaximumCoal D

U1

176

9.2.7 Run 25D, Running to 0.050% S in

Steel Maximum Specification
While the previous runs were used to explore the
optimal paths for producing steel with a maximum sulphur
content of 0.025%, Run 25D was developed using a maximum
allowable steel sulphur content of 0.050%.

In the same

way as in the previous runs, no premiiam was assigned to a

given sequence if it resulted in a finished steel sulphur
level predicted to be less than the aim.
The function relating BOF charge-to-tap time to hot
metal sulphur content was changed for the present run.

It

was assumed that the average time to make 0.050% maximum

sulphur steel using hot metal at 0.050% and scrap at 0.040%
is the same time needed in making 0.025% maximum sulphur
steel from hot metal at 0.020% and scrap again at 0.040%.
Thus for the present run, 2.27 minutes were subtracted from
each charge-to-tap time estimated from the earlier equation.
Figure 9.19 shows the optimal path found for the un
constrained case.

Even though the blast furnace step could

produce higher-sulphur hot metal at lower stage costs than

shov/n here, it was found that in total the lowest cost
sequence involved hot metal with high temperature and
relatively low sulphur.

In the optimal case of Figure 9.19,

the finished steel was predicted to have 0.024% S.

The important impact of blast furnace slag basicity
on hot metal temperature and composition is highlighted in

177

comparing Figure 9.20 with Figure 9.19.

Here a shift from

1.15 basicity to 0.95 basicity results in a total cost

difference betv/een the two examples of only $0.07.

With

the lower slag basicity shown in Figure 9,20, higher sulphur

hot metal is predicted.

External desulphurization using

lime is now required.

The most important result noted in comparing this
run with the optimal 4D result (Figure 9.10) is that a
difference of $3.04 exists between the total $173.52 hereand the $176.56 in Figure 9.10.

Despite the fact that

average ladle sulphur values are predicted to be the same,

the unconstrained case shown in Figure 9.21 enjoys a cost
advantage over that in Figure 9.10 due to the lessened
average charge-to-tap time.

This $3.04 is then available

for ladle desulphurization following the BOF, on those

heats requiring it.
9.2.8
Run 2A, Prepared Coal A with
Base Cost Set
Turning now to Coal A, Figures 9.21 through 9.29
illustrate results found for this low sulphur coal.

The

optimal path for Run 2A shown in Figure 9.21 was determined

when using Cost Set 1.

Comparing the predicted total cost

of $172.67 with the $176.71 of the base case from Figure

9.3 (which uses the same coal but present "normal" practice)
it is estimated that nearly $4.00/ton steel can be saved
over the "normal" practice if minor changes are made to the

SPIRAL 01.51

2450

DM

CYC @1.52

DM

CYC @1.52

90

F FLUE TEMPERATURE

0.95 BASICITY

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM

% PULVERIZATION

1143 K BLAST TEMP

CaO inj,

19.1 lb

FLOTATION
1.06 %S

COAL

3.4 %S

4.2

COKE

%ASH

0.465 TON
COAL

12.0 %Ash

BLEND

0.895 %S

0.75 TON

0.75 ton

7.45 %ASH

0.035%S

0.015%S

0.85 %Si

0.85 %Si

2680 F

2430 F

52

STBL

0.445 TON
COKE
$ -6.09

$ 11.76

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2573
STONE CHARGE 395
COKE RATE 1202
SULPHUR 0.035
RUNNER TEMP 2684

$ . 75.61

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

$ 1.52

$ 90.79

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020 %S
LIME
57.5
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
33.7

MIN

$0.06 more than optimal path for iinconstrained final steel sulphur
RUN NUMBER
COST SET

25D

TOTAL COST $

173.59

Figure 9.20.

Close Alternate Route to OptimalRun 25D

00

SPIRAL 1.45

2450 "F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC @ 1.44

8 % MOISTURE

DM CYC @ 1.45

90

0.95 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM

% PULVERIZATION

1143 K BLAST TEMP

CaC^ in].

FLOTATION
0.68 %S

0.65 %S
0.74%S

COAL

15.0 %Ash

2.8

%ASH

COKE

6.2 %ASH

0.44

TON
COAL

BLEND

_52

BLAST

STBL

0.42 TON
COKE

$ 11.80

$ -6.49

$ . 70.58

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2644
STONE CHARGE 372
COKE RATE
1168
SULPHUR
0.027
RUNNER TEMP 2688

RUN NUMBER
COST SET

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

0.71 TON

0.71 TON

0.025%S

0.015%s

0.90 %Si

0.90 %Si

2690 op

2490 F

$ 1.68

1
172.67
Figure 9.21.

95.10

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020 %S
LIME 61.8
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME

2A

TOTAL COST $

3.5 lb

Optimal RouteWashed Coal A

36.0

MIN

ADDED COST
ABOVE OPTIMAL

STAGE DECISIONS
4
. 0.71 TON

$0.08

( ) more

SAME

SAME

SAME

*^^^2

EXT
DES

'

4.8 lb

0.010 %S

BOF

0.90 %Si
2490

$ 1.84
(

SAME

SAME

95.02

SAME

BASICITY
"SCF/NTHM
"K BLAST

( )

SAME

SAME

2350FFLUE TEMP.
8% MOISTURE
90% PULVERIZATION

. $0.07

) more

SAME

COKE

0.6A%S
6.2 %ASH
52 STBL
0.42 TON
"COKE

$-6.42

0.95 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST

BLAST

$ 70.58

CaC^ inj.

0.71TON
0.025%S
0.90 %Si
2690 F

3.5 lb
0.71TON
0.015%S
0.90%Si
2490F

$ 1.68

$ 95.10

RUN 2A
CLOSE ALTERNATE CONDITIONS
Figure 9.22.

Close Alternate Conditions to Optimal2A

00

SPIRAL @1.45

2450 F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC @1.44

10 % MOISTURE

DM CYC @1.45

85 % PULVERIZATION

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST TEMP

FLOTATION
0.68 %S

0.65 %S
0.74%S
15

%Ash

COAL
PREP
&SHIP

2.8

%ASH

0.5

TON
COAL

COKE
W/
BLEND

6.2 %ASH
50

STBL

0.75 TON
BLAST
FCE

$ -7.35

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2619
STONE CHARGE 513
COKE RATE 1227
SULPHUR
0.017
RUNNER TEMP 2657

EXT
DES

0.80 %Si
2665 F

0.46 TON
COKE
$ 13.41

0.015%S

$ . 75.33

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

No external
desulphurization
0.75 TON
0.015%S
BOF
0.80 %Si
2490 F

$ 94.11

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020 %S
LIME
55.6
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.0 MIN

RUN NUMBER 12A

COST SET 1
TOTAL COST $
Figure 9.23.

175.50

Least-Cost Route with no External DesulphurizationCoal A

ADDED COST
ABOVE OPTIMAL

STAGE DECISIONS

SAME

SAME

SAME

SAME

SAME

SAME

No external
desulphurization

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1088 K BLAST
0.75
0.020 %S
0.80 %Sl

$1.23

) more

SAME

SAME

0.75 , TON
0.020%S
0 . 8 0 "%9i
2490 -op

$ 76.06
2350<FFLUE TEMP.
10% .MOISTURE
85% PULVERIZATION
$0.07
(

more

SAME

COKE

1.15 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 K BLAST

68 %S
6 . 2 %ASH
50 STBL
0.46 TON
COKE

$-7.28

94.61
No external desulphurization

0.75 ton
0.015%S

$ 75.33

0.75 TON
0.015%S
0.80 %Si
2490 "F
$

$ 94.11

RUN 12A
CLOSE ALTERNATE CONDITIONS
Figure

9.24.

Close Alternate Conditions when no External Desulphurization is

AllowedCoal A

SPIRAL @1.45

2450 F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC @1.44

0.95 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM

8 % MOISTURE

DM CYC @1.45

1143 o K BLAST TEMP

90 % PULVERIZATION

CaO

inj. 3.5 lb

FLOTATION
0.65 %S
0.74%S

COAL
PREP
&SHIP

15.0 %Ash

2.8

%ASH

0.44

TON
COAL

0.68 %S
COKE

6-2 %ASH

W/
BLEND

52

0.71 TON
0.025%s
BLAST
FCE

STBL

0.42 TON
COKE
$

22.28

$ -8.39

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2644
STONE CHARGE 372
COKE RATE
1168
SULPHUR
0.027
RUNNER TEMP 2688

RUN NUMBER

0.71 TON

$ 67.12

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

0.90 %si

0.015%S
EXT
DES

BOF
0.90 %si
2490 F

2690 F

$ 2.10

COST SET 1
178.62

Figure 9.25.

$ 95.51

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020 %S
LIME
61.8
LB/TON
C HARGE-TO-TAP-TIME

lOA

TOTAL COST $

OptimalDoubled Energy CostsCoal A

36.0

MIN

ADDED COST
ABOVE OPTIMAL

$0.24
) more

STAGE DECISIONS

SAME

SAME

SAME

0.71
0.010 %S
0750

CaC2 inj.
4.8 lb

95.42

$ 2.43
(

SAME

SAME

SAME

BASICITY
'SCF/NTHM
"K BLAST
(

SAME

SAME

2350"FFLUE TEMP
8% MOISTURE
90% PULVERIZATION
. $0.14
{ ) more

SAME
COKE

0.95 BASICITY
56500 SCF/NTHM
1143 "K BLAST

$ 67.12

3.5 lb
0.71 TON
0.015%S
0.90 %Si
2490 F

0.71
0.025 %S
0.90
2690

0.68 %S
6.2 %ASH
_52 ^STBL
0.42 TON
COKE

$-8.25

CaC^ inj,

2.10

RUN IDA
CLOSE ALTERNATE CONDITIONS

Figure 9.26.

Close Alternate Conditions to OptimallOA

$ 95.57

SPIRAL @1,49

2450

DM CYC @1.77
DM CYC @1.65

"F FLUE TEMPERATURE

1.15 BASICITY

10

% MOISTURE

56500 SCF/NTHM

80

% PULVERIZATION

1143 OK blast TEMP

0.75 TON

No external
desulphurization
0.75 ton

0.020%S

0.020%S

0.75 %Si

0.75 %Si

2640 F

2440 F

FLOTATION
0.68 %S
COAL

0.74%S
15.0 %Ash

0.71%S

4.3

%ASH

COKE

7.6 %ASH

0.5

TON
COAL

BLEND

49

BLAST

STBL

0.48 TON
COKE
$

-8.46

23.27

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2526
STONE CHARGE 548
COKE RATE 1266
SULPHUR
0.019
RUNNER TEMP 2647

$. 73.10

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

No external desulphurization alloweddoubled energy costs

RUN NUMBER 13A
COST SET

TOTAL COST $

181.70
Figure 9.27.

Least-Cost Route13A

$ 93.79
BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024 %S
53.1
LIME
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4

MIN

SPIRAL @1.45
DM CYC @1.44
DM CYC @1.45
FLOTATION

2450 op PLUE TEMPERATURE

COAL

15.0 %Ash

55500 SCF/NTHM

8 % MOISTURE
10 % PULVERIZATION
0.65 %s

0.74%s

1.15 BASICITY

1143 K BLAST TEMP

0.68%S

2-8 %ASH

COKE

6-2 %ASH

0.48 TON
COAL

BLEND

52

BLAST

STBL

0.44 TON
COKE
$ 24.31

$ -9.15

No external
desulphurization

0.75 TON

0.75 TON

0.020%S

0.02CfeS

0.85 %Si

0.85 %Si

2665 F

2490 OF

$. 71.11

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2644
STONE CHARGE 442
COKE RATE 1198
SULPHUR
0.021
RUNNER TEMP 2677

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM
%S
F

$ 95.49
BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.024 %S
LIME
58.9
LB/TON
CHARGE-TO-TAP-TIME
36.4 MIN

Close alternative with no external desulphurization and doubled energy costs

RUN NUMBER 13A

COST SET 4
TOTAL COST $ 181.76
Figure 9.28.

Close Alternative RouteRun 13A

SPIRAL @1.45

2450 F FLUE TEMPERATURE

DM CYC @1.44

56500 SCF/NTHM

8 % MOISTURE
90 % PULVERIZATION

DM CYC @1.45

0.95 BASICITY

1143 K BLAST TEMP

FLOTATION
0.65 %S
74 %S
15.0

COAL

%Ash

%ASH
TON
COAL

0.68 %S
COKE
W/
BLEND

6.2 %ASH
52

STBL

0.71 TON
BLAST
FCE

0.42 TON
COKE
$ -6.49

$ 11.80

BLAST FURNACE
PREDICTED VALUES
PRODUCTION 2644
STONE CHARGE 372
1168
COKE RATE
SULPHUR
0.027
RUNNER TEMP 2688

0.025%S
0.9

%Si

TPD
LB/NTHM
LB/NTHM

EXT
DES

0.015%S
BOF
0.9

$ 1.68

$ 92.12

BOF
PREDICTED VALUES
LADLE SULPHUR 0.020 %S
LB/TON
LIME
59.4
CHARGE-TO-TAP--TIME

%S

RUN NUMBER 15A

COST SET 1
169.69

Figure 9.29.

%Si

2490 F

Optimal path for imconstrained final steel sulphur

TOTAL COST $

3.5 lb

0.71 TON

2690 F

$ . 70.58

CaC^ inj.

Optimal0.050% S Maximum in SteelCoal A

33.7

MIN

188

processing sequence.

Perhaps of as much interest is the

fact that the optimal route produces a finished steel

product with the predicted ladle sulphur below the required
specification.
The optimal route includes the most extensive coal
preparation possible, with the subject coal washed to 0.65%
S and a low 2.8% ash.

Coke stage decision variables chosen

by the dynamic programming solution maximize by-product gas

yield using the 2450F flue temperature.

In the blast

furnace the low-sulphur, low-ash coke produced from the

blended coal charge is used in the production of relatively
high-temperature, high-silicon hot metal.

It is noted that

the least-cost sequence also includes the low (0.95) slag

basicity.

Despite the hot metal having only 0.025% S, the

optimal route includes a $1.68 expenditure for CaC2 injec

tion desulphurization.

Subsequent savings in expected BOP

heat time and lime charge are sufficient to pay for the
desulphurization expense at this point.

Low-sulphur hot

metal containing 0.9% Si is then charged to the BOF where

the final steel product is estimated to finish at 0.020% S.
Two close-to-optimal conditions are summarized in
Figure 9.22.

These were found during examination of the

Dynamic Programming solutions to Run 2A.

The sequence at

the top of the figure shows the closest of the alternate

decisions at the external desulphurization stage:

189

desulphurization to the lower 0.010% S value using 4.8 lb of

CaC2/ at a small $0.08 increased cost.
Finally, in the second case in Figure 9,22, the
decision variables for the coke oven stage remain the same
as in the optional case, except for lowered flue tempera
ture.

Production rate of the coking oven is lowered

accordingly, resulting in a small $0.07 increase in total

costs.
9.2.9 Run 12A, No External
Desulphurization Allowed---Coal A
Figures 9.23 and 9.24 from run 12A illustrate
routes of interest for the configuration where no external
desulphurization is allowed.

The total cost difference

between the optimal from Run 2A (Figure 9.21) and the

present least cost route without external desulphurization
(Figure 9.23) is ($175.50 - $172.67) = $2.83.

The primary

cost disadvantage for not using external desulphurization in

this case arises from the higher coal and blast furnace
stage costs.

This is directly related to the need to run

with elevated slag basicity, and therefore a higher coke

rate.
Close alternate paths for Run 12A are presented in
Figure 9.24.

The path at the top shows the undesirable cost

effect of lowered blast temperature.

190

9.2.10 Run lOA, Doubling in the Energy

CostsCoal A
Figures 9.25 and 9.26 summarize sequences of
interest for the hypothetical case where a doubling in all
energy costs and credits occurs and Coal A is in use.

The

optimal route under these conditions, shown in Figure 9.25,

is identical to the earlier scheme of Figure 9.21.

The

doubling of energy costs is predicted to add $5.95 to the

cost for producing one ton of steel.

This compares well

with the $6.16 projected for the case of Coal D under the
same change in cost circumstances.
The close alternate conditions in Figure 9.26
include a different (calcium carbide injection) desulphurization option at $0.24/ton more in total cost.

Finally, the

different decision variables for the coking stage shown at

the bottom of Figure 9.27 result in a $0.14/ton decrease in
the credit to the coke stage, but with coke having the same
output state vector as before.
9.2.11 Run 13A, No External Desulphurization
with Doubled Energy CostCoal A
Constraining the algorithm to pick the lowest-cost
sequence without external desulphurization under the
doubled energy cost set results in the sequence of Figure
9.27.

Here in somewhat of a paradox. Coal A undergoes

only intermediate preparation.

Resulting coal sulphur is

still quite low, and later desulphurization takes place

191

solely in the blast furnace.

Total cost of this route is

$3.08 more than the corresponding optimal shown in Figure

9.25.

This means that if optimal routes are followed for

the low-sulphur coal under the doubled energy prices,

omitting external desulphurization adds $3.08/ton to the
total cost.
Figure 9.28 depicts a scheme that is quite close
in total cost to that shown in Figure 9.27.

The main

difference is in the level of coal preparation.

It is

interesting that the lower cost route when omitting external

desulphurization, has the slightly higher clean coal
sulphur and ash contents.
9.2.12 Run 15A, Running to 0.050% S
Maximum in Steel
Finally, Run 15A, again using the base Cost Set 1,
explores the least expensive path for steel production when
the steel can finish with any sulphur level less than
0.050% S.

Interestingly, the Dynamic Programming algorithm

picked the coal preparation decision variables responsible

for the lowest sulphur and ash contents.

This premium coal

cleanliness apparently promotes high blast furnace and BOF

productivity, which in turn outweighs the expense for coal
cleaning.
The optimal scheme for 0.025% maximiam steel shown
in Figure 9.21 is nearly $3.00 more expensive than the
optimal route shown here in Figure 9.29.

If prepared Coal A

192

is used for 70% of the coke oven blend, this $2.98/ton would
be available for ladle desulphurizing the steel in those
heats finishing over the 0.025% S specification.

It is

apparent that the $2.98 is derived from the BOF stages of

the sequence.
This $2.98 savings is close to the $3.04 savings
found when the high-S coal (Coal D) case was unconstrained
and allowed to produce steel with 0.050% maximiim S level.
Both of these savings result from the fact that the average
BOF charge-to-tap time is assumed to decrease as % S in
the ladle increases (Gillum 193]).

This relationship

between time and % S is therefore an important one,

requiring careful evaluation.

CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of this research program, the following
conclusions were reached.
10.1
1.

General

The base case ("normal") processing sequence using

the low-sulphur coal was not found to be optimal.
With the following changes, the optimal route would
be $4.04/ton less expensive than the base case.
a.

More coal preparation, with the sulphur and ash

contents changed from 0.68% and 4.3% respec
tively, to 0.65% and 2.8%.

b.

Lowered blast furnace slag basicity from 1.05

to 0.95.

c.

Increased blast temperature from 1500F to

1600F.

d.

External desulphurization using the CaC2

injection process.

The optimal route for the high-sulphur coal was

predicted to be $0.15/ton less expensive than the
base case.

Important items in the optimal route

found for this coal include;

193

194

2.

a.

Coal preparation to 1.06% S and 4.2% ash,

b.

Running blast furnace slag basicity at 1.15.

c.

Using a blast temperature of 1600F.

When no external desulphurization is allowed, the

least-cost route for the low-sulphur coal was found
to be $1.21/ton less expensive than the base case.
Changes from the base-case included:
a.

Increasing coal preparation to the 0.65% S and

2.8% ash level.

3.

b.

Increasing blast furnace slag basicity to 1,15.

c.

Increasing blast temperature to 1600F,

Under a doubling of all energy-related costs, the

optimal route for low-sulphur coal remained the
same, while external desulphurization was introduced
as the optimal route for the high-sulphur coal.
The following conclusions are separate summaries for

each of the five stages,

10.2
1.

Coal Preparation and Shipping

Prepared coking coal of premium quality is vitally

important to the economics of the system.

An

additional cost of at least $9.72/ton steel is found

when comparing direct shipment of unprepared highsulphur coal with the optimal preparation- scheme.
This cost is primarily due to the increased coke

195

rate and the decreased blast furnace production rate

resulting from utilization of the high-ash coking
coal.
2.

As the price of as-mined coal increases, the

deleterious cost effect of direct shipping unpre
pared coal remains approximately constant.

Upon a

doubling of coal price, the penalty for direct

shipment of the high-sulphur coal was $9,62/ton
steel, relative to the optimal route involving
coal preparation.
3.

An economic limit to coal preparation was found to

occur when subsequent marginal returns in the system
could not support yield losses at the coal prepara
tion stage.

This effect is a function of the

washing characteristics, the composition, and the

price of the coal.
4.

In all cases, the preparation process chosen for

each coal size fraction were:
(Z) -35 m + 100 m

Spiral

(M) -1/2" + 35 m

Dense Media Cyclone

(L) +1/2"

Dense Media Cyclone

(S) -100 m

Flotation

Using the COALS model as a stand-alone program, it

was found that the cost of magnetite must increase
from 4<;:/lb to over 15<:/lb before a jig was preferred

196

in moderate cleaning of the L-size fraction for

Coal D.
10.3
1.

Coking

The coking stage cost was not found to be highly

sensitive to the coke oven decision variables, under
the base cost conditions.

The difference in total

cumulative four-stage cost between the most- and

the least-favorable coke-oven decision variables
was usually approximately $1.00/ton of steel.
2.

Under present cost conditions, the vector of cokeoven decision variables usually chosen as optimal
was the combination of 2450F flue temperature
(maximum allowable), 8% moisture, and 90% pulveriza
tion level.

This vector is conducive to high by

product gas yield and moderate coke stability

(usually 52).
3.

Upon doubling the cost of energy, the coke stage

decision variables become more important.

In this

case the cost difference between the most- and

least-favorable coke-oven decision variables
increased to approximately $1.5D/ton of steel.
10.4
1.

Blast Furnace

For the lov; sulphur coal, external desulphurization

is chosen, allowing the blast furnace to run with
lean slag basicity.

Under the base costs, the high

197

sulphur coal has an optimum route that does not have

external desulphurization.

However, with a doubling

in energy costs and credits, powdered lime de

sulphurization is introduced.

Slag basicity

responds appropriately.
2.

Of the three choices of blast temperature (1400,

1500, 1600F), the highest was always preferred.
The main reason for this appears to be due to
productivity.
10.5

1.

External Desulphurization

For one coal, external desulphurization is chosen

under the base set of costs representing present
conditions.

Upon the hypothetical doubling in

energy-related costs and credits, external de

sulphurization. is chosen for both.
2.

When external desulphurizationis called for, the

least cost two stage sequence usually involves
desulphurizing to low values and then realizing less
average refining time in the BOF.

3.

Lime was most commonly specified as the de

sulphurizing reagent, with CaC2 being chosen in
certain instances.

Presently the main advantage

of lime desulphurization is its low reagent cost.

4.

Mag-coke is not competitive with lime or CaC2

desulphurization at its present reagent cost.

198

10.6

BOF

The optimal sequence under both base costs as well

as doubled energy costs, predicts a finished steel
sulphur at less than the 0.025% S specification.
Implementation of hot metal desulphurization as
energy costs increase would afford the integrated
steel producer a substantial advantage over electric
furnace shops which rely entirely on scrap charge.
As the price of burnt lime increases from the
present $35/ton to a projected $48/ton as a result
of increased fuel costs, the optimal route does not
change, while total costs increase by approximately
$0.45/ton steel.

CHAPTER 11
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
The structure of the Dynamic Programming algorithm
is not favorable to sensitivity analysis of variables that
were not explicitly treated as decision variables.

If funds

were available to support the computer time, additional

studies could be made using different blast furnace burden
ing practice for example, or different characteristics of
the coal such as feed size and composition.

On the CYBER

175 installation at The University of Arizona, one run

usually takes 43 seconds of central processor time, and
costs approximately $25.00.
It should be noted that the programs were designed
to be amenable to study of any other practice, with respect
to both the metallurgical system response and the economic
behavior in each of the five defined stages.

The programs

can easily incorporate different practices by changes in

appropriate data statements.

On the other hand, constraints

such as minimum or maximum production rates can be

accommodated by simply making logic checks immediately
before entering results into the stage-return and trans
formation tables.

If the check is not satisfied, program

199

200

logic can be transferred.to the next input vector/decision

vector combination.
Furthermore, the programs can easily be changed to
stand-alone models that could be run individually to explore
economic response for the single stage represented.
COALS model is a particular case in point.

The

In doing so,

however, results from a single-stage run must be carefully

interpreted.

The least-cost single-stage solution can

certainly not be guaranteed as part of what would later '

develop as the overall optimal route.

APPENDIX A
HIGH TEMPERATURE HEAT AND MATERIAL BALANCE
FOR THE BLAST FURNACE
The following information details the derivation of
the high temperature zone heat and material balance used in
the blast furnace model.

Only those reactions occurring in

the region of the furnace above 1800F are considered.

While the balance uses one ton (2000 lb) of hot
metal as the basis, all calculations are carried out in
metric units.

All variables are assigned mnemonic names

that are explained in the derivation.

Four simultaneous

linear equations are developed: (a) Silicon Balance, (b)

Carbon Balance, (c) Oxygen Balance, and (d) Heat Balance.
Unknowns
WCC

- Weight of carbon (grams) entering high tempera

ture zone.

WTG

- Weight of bosh gas (grams) leaving high

temperature zone.

SI02

- Gram-moles Si02 in slag.

TMP

- Temperature of hot metal leaving high tempera

ture zone.

Knowns
Blast;

WBL
VOBL
VN2BL
VH20BL

Weight
Volume
Volume
Volume

of entering blast (grams/NTHM).

% oxygen in blast.
% nitrogen in blast.
% water vapor in blast.
201

202

TBL
WOBL

WN2BL
WH20BL

Blast temperature (degrees K).

Weight % oxygen in blast, calculated
from VOBL above.
Weight % nitrogen in blast.
Weight % water vapor in blast.

Calcined Stone:
WTSTON

lib/NTHM calculated calcined stone

weight based on original charge-stone
weight.
SI02ST - Calculated silica content of calcined
stone based on original silica content
of charged stone.

Coke;

COKRAT - Lb/NTHM coke weight as charged to blast

furnace.
SI02CK - As-charged silica content of coke.

Partially-reduced Burden:
WBR
- Calculated weight (grams/NTHM) of
burden as it enters high temperature
zone; assume that after reduction in
upper shaft the iron units exist as
2/3 FeO and 1/3 Fe.
FEOBR - Calculated weight per cent of FeO in
burden that has been partially-reduced
before entering high temperature zone.
FEBR
- Calculated weight per cent Fe in
partially-reduced burden.
SI02BR - Calculated weight per cent Si02 in
prereduced burden.
'
Bosh Gas:
VCOTG

Assumed volume per cent CO in bosh gas

exiting zone.
'VC02TG - Assumed volume per cent CO2 in bosh gas
exiting zone. [Based on reference (87)
these were input in blast furnace model
data as 30% and 10%, respectively.]

Slag:

WSL
CPSL

Slag volume calculated in blast furnace

model and converted to grams/NTHM.
Heat capacity of slag, entered in blast
furnace model data at 0.35 [based on
p. 689 in Blast FurnaceTheory and
Practice (73)].

203

Hot Metal:
WHM
CPHM

Heat Loss:
QLOSSl

Constant weight of hot metal exiting

high temperature zone = 2000 lb =
9.072 X 10^ grams
Heat capacity of hot metal, entered in
blast furnace model data as 0.215
[reference (73)].
This term is considered a direct
function of blast temperature. Using
an approach suggested by operating
experience of a hot metal producer,
the heat loss for a given blast
temperature (QLOSSl) is given by:
QLOSSl = QLOSS + K.^productlon
(blast temp. F - base blast
temp. F)
where QLOSS is the heat loss for the
base blast temperature. The present
blast furnace model is calibrated to
a given set of known conditions, by
manipulation of the QLOSS and K2 terms,
The KT value remains constant at
3.629 * 10^.
Simulation of the heat and mass
balance data in Blast FurnaceTheory
and Practice (73) was achieved with
K2 = 5 and QLOSS = 2.56 * 10 at the
base blast temperature of 1400F.

Assumptions
Hot metal silicon is linearly related to hot metal
temperature by Wt% Si = ALPHA + BETA * T (degrees F),
where ALPHA is -6.05 and BETA is 0.0025774, per
references (72) and (85).
Hot metal carbon is linearly related to hot metal
temperature and silicon content by:
Wt% C = GAMMA + DELTA * T (degrees F) + EPSILON * % Si
where GAMMA = 1.28, DELTA = 0.00142,and EPSILON =
-0.304, per p. 920 in reference (86).

204

By substituting;
Wt% C = GAMMA + DELTA * T (deg. F) + EPSILON
[(ALPHA + BETA * T (deg. F)]
= (GAMMA + ALPHA * EPSILON) + (DELTA + BETA +
EPSILON) T (deg. F)
= PSI + PHI * T (deg. F)
Equations
Weight per cent silicon in hot metal is related to
SIL(gr-mols silicon in hot metal) by: ^
Wt% ^ = (SIL)(28.086)(100)/9.072 * 10^ = 3.096
* lO"^ SIL
Conversely, SIL = 323.01 % Si.
Then knowing T (deg. F) = 1.8 TMP - 459.7, by
substituting:
SIL = 323.01 ALPHA + 581.42 BETA * TMP - 1.4849
* 10^ BETA
Weight per cent carbon in hot metal is related to
CARB(gr-mols carbon in hot metal) byij.
Wt% C = (GARB)(12.01)(100)/9.072 * 10 = 1.3239
* 10~3 GARB, or GARB = 755.37 % G
Knowing % G = (GAMMA + ALPHA * EPSILON) + (DELTA +
BETA * EPSILON) * T (deg. F), and
by substituting:
GARB = 755.37 GAMMA + 755.37 ALPHA * EPSILON + 1359.67
DELTA * TMP + 1359.67 BETA * EPSILON * TEMP 3.4724 * 10^ DELTA - 3.4724 * 10^ BETA * EPSILON
Weight per cent iron is:
Wt% Fe = 100 - (%C+%Si+% others) = 100 (% G + % ^ + 0.4746)
= 100 - 1.0 (ALPHA + GAMMA + ALPHA * EPSILON) +1.8
(BETA * TMP + GAMMA * TMP + BETA * EPSILON * TMP) 459.7 (BETA + GAMMA + BETA * EPSILON) + 0.4746
In manner similar to above, FE (gram-moles-Fe) can be
expressed as:
FE = 162.435 * % Fe

205

Calculated heats of reaction at 1800F:

a) FeO. + C, . = Fe, % + CO,
AH____ = + 36180
<9'
^8al/gr-mole FeO
b)
= Fe
(hypothetical)
^^^1800 ~
''2(g) * ' ^ ( g r ) " "2(g) """ '^(g)
'^"iSOO ''2276
2<=(gr) + 2(g) = ^ CO,g,
= -54219
e) SiOj,^) + 2
= Si + 2 CO,g)
= + 144267
=(gr) = 5
g) 2 CO, , = CO, + C, .
^
(g)
2
(gr)
h) 1.65 CaO + SiO = 1.65 CaO-SiO
Z

^^2(a)

^^2(Jl)

/i

^800 *
5"
- 40292
1800
AH, = -20000
J.oU U /
\
(approx.)
^^1800 ^

Expressing these reactions in terms of the defined

variables:
a) AH^gQ= (+36180)(WBR)(FEOBR)(0.01)/71.85
=5.035 * WBR * FEOBR
b) AHj^goo = [5.5321 * 10*7 - 5.5585 * 105 (ALPHA + GAMMA
+ ALPHA * EPSILON) + 2.555 * 10^ (BETA + GAMMA
+ BETA * EPSILON) - 1.0 * 10^ TMP * (BETA + GAMMA
+ BETA * EPSILON)]
c) AH^gQQ = 23.487 * WBL * H20BL
d) AH^gQQ = - 16.943 * WBL * WOBL
e) AHigoO = + 144267 * SIL + 4.66 * 10^ ALPHA + 8.388
* lO"^ BETA * TMP - 2.1422 * 10^0 BETA
f) AH i800 = 3.8524 * 10^ (GAMMA + ALPHA * EPSILON)
+ 6.9343 * 10^ TMP * (GAMMA + ALPHA * EPSILON)
- 1.7709 * 10^ (DELTA + BETA * EPSILON)
g) AHj^gQQ = - 9.155 * WTG * WC02TG
h) AH^gQQ = - 20000 SI02
i) AH^gQQ = + 1840 SI02
Blast Enthalpy:
HBLAST = 3.125 * 10
WBL * WOBL [9805 - (7.16 TBL
+ 0.5 * 10~3 TBL^ + 0.4 * 10^ TBL"1)] + 3.5714
* 10"'^ WBL * WN2BL [9162 - (6.66 TBL + 0.51 * 10"^
TBL2)] + 5.555 * 10-4 WBL * WH20BL [11008 - (7.17
TBL + 1.28 * 10"^ TBL^ - 0.08 * 10^ TBL"^)]

206

Hot Metal Enthalpy:

Hhm = WHM * CPHM * TMP - WHM * CPHM * 1255
Slag Enthalpy:
HSLAG ^

Mass/Energy Balances
Three mass balances and one heat balance can now be
written:
Silicon Balance:
Wt. silicon in = WTSTON * SI02ST * 0.467 + COKRAT
* SI02CK * 0.467 + WBR * SI02BR * 0.467
Wt. silicon out = C28.086)(100) tSI02 + SIL) = 2808.6
(SI02 + 323.01 ALPHA + 581.42 BETA * TMP - 1.4849
* 10^ BETA)
Substituting and putting the underlined unknowns on
left side:
SI02 + 581.4 BETA * TMP = 1.6643 * 10
(WTSTON
* SI02ST + COKRAT * SI02CK + WBR * SI02BR)
- 323.01 ALPHA + 1.4849 * 10^ BETA
Carbon Balance:
Wt. carbon in = WCC
Wt.
*
=
*
*
*
*

carbon out = 0.01 WTG * WCOTG * 0.42878 + 0.01

WTG * WC02TG * 0.2729 + 12.01 CARB
4.2878 * 10-3 WTG * WCOTG + 2.729 * 10
WTG
WC02TG + 12.01~T755.37 GAMMA + 755.37 ALPHA
EPSILON + 1359.67 DELTA * TMP + 1359.67 BETA
EPSILON * TMP - 3.4724 * lO^DELTA - 3.4724
105 BETA * EPSILON)

WCC - WTG (4.2878 * 10~^ WCOTG + 2.729 * 10~^ WC02TG)

- 1.633 * 10'^ TMP * PHI
= 9.072 * 103 psi - 4.17035 * 10 PHI
Oxygen Balance:
Wt. oxygen in = WBL * WOBL + 0.5326 WTSTON * S102ST
+0.5326 COKRAT * SI02CK + 0.5326 WBR * SI02BR
+ 0.2227 WBR * FEOBR
Wt. oxygen out = 0.5712 WTG * WC02TG + 0.7271 WTG
* WCOTG + 3200 SI02

207

WTG (1.0725 WCOTG + 1.3652 WC02TG) + 6008.26 SI02 =

1.8776 WBL * WOBL + WTSTON * SI02ST + COKRAT
* SI02CK + WBR * SI02BR + 0.41814 WBR * FEOBR
Heat Balance:
'
8.388 * 10*7 BETA * TMP + 6.9343 * 10 PHI * TMP
- 1.0 * 10^ TMP * (BETA + DELTA + BETA * EPSILON)
- 9.155 WTG * WC02TG + 1840 SI02 - 2000 SI02
+ 9.072 * 10^ CPHM * TMP + WSL * CPSL * TMP
= 5.035 WBR * FEOBR
- 5.5585 * 10^ (ALPHA + GAMMA + ALPHA * EPSILON)
+ 2.555 * 10 (BETA + DELTA + BETA * EPSILON)
- 16.943 WBL * WOBL + 4.66 * lo"^ ALPHA
- 2,1422 * lOjO BETA + 3.8524 * 10^ PSI
- 1.7709 * 10^ PHI + 5.5321 * 10'
+ 3.125 * 10-4 WBL * WOBL [9805 - (7.16 TBL
+ 0.5 * 10"^ TBL^ + 0.4 * 10^ TBL"!)]
+ 3.5714 * 10"'^ WBL * TVN2BL [9162 - (6.66 TBL
+ 0.51 * 10-3 TBL^)]
+ 5.555 * 10-' WBL * WH20BL [11008 - (7.17 TBL
+1.28 * 10-3 TBL^ - 0.08 * 10^ TBL"^)]
- 9.072 * 10^ CPHM * 1255
- WSL * CPSL * 1230
+ QLOSSl

APPENDIX B
DATA SETS FOR EACH MODEL PROGRAM
The six data sets used in the six computer models
that comprise the system simulation are shown.

In order,

they are:
COALSD.DAT
COKED.DAT
BLASTD.DAT
EXTD.DAT
BOFD.DAT
F0R21D.DAT (for the Dynamic Programming Model)
At the bottom of the first five data sets are the
variable names corresponding to the data entered above.

208

0.95
1.02
4.2
0.4
116439.
1.76
.702203

0.0
0.0
1.28
1.85
48.1
0.5
0.20
9.06

0.05
5
5
4
-288167.
1.36
-.315149
0.65
0.85
I.35

1.8
39.1
0.52
2.0
20.0

0.10
0.04
0.25
0.05
267296.

-110118.

59.

2.2

1.45

1.55

1.65

1.75

6.7

3.3

1.6

0.7

1.50
2.92
14.3
12.5

2.20

.3.45

6.28

22.6

28.6

34.2

75.0

1.0
0.010

0.0

0.0

280.0

2.2
28.0

16998.5

II.0

0.59

21.28
5.5
67.8
22.0
500.0

10.0

(nosas = spdr fractions considered for

each wsshab curve) (nowash = 1 if all 3 sizes'
use same uashab curve 3 if a curve for each size)
NAIM (ainis = aims +/- aimtlr)
AIMING
AIMS
AIMTLR
B = FOR CLEAN COAL S)
NOB
PELS
nouNB
( C = FOR CLEAN COAL ASH)
" C
C
c
( D = FOR COAL WTS)
D
D
P
WITHIN(i) i=lf8 (first 6 are coeff of F-oIy - last 2
are upr-er and lower ranae)
UININV(i) i=l>4 <first2 are coef for bishup - last 2 upprrlowr)
FLTASH(i) i=lr4 (coefs of relationship between 7. ash floated
and totalX wt recovered in float - same for %s)
FLTSUL(i) i=lr4
SGMIIiS(i) i=lnosas
UGHT(ifJ) i=lfnosas+l (J either 1 or 3 - see nowash above)
UTPYSCifJ)
* (J as above - last value is totalZ pas in coal)
UTASH(iJ)
(J as above - last = total ash)
TOTORS(J) J is either 1 or 3 - total organic sulphur
SIZE(i) i=lr6
< z - IN - 1 - s - -48m - -200ITI )
COLCST TONSRO WAGE
UPTNMI DISTNC
^
(Tiiles for coal to ship
"
"
" $/ton-niile for shipping
total hourly waae - incl benefits" tons dru coal/hr read from plant
cost/ton for coal entering wash plant

NOSGS

NOMASH

66.0
66.0
0.72 000001A3
0.<.5
1.05
30.0
30.0
-9.ei
57.66
7.0
1.02
5
..?
5
0.<.3&
A
2250.0
3
6.0
2
dC.O
3
0.665
5
7.15
5
50.0
3
<1
0.<il5

150.
7.5
0.0
O.O'i
0.?5
0.03
100.0
2.0
5.0
0.03
0.30
2.0
0.03

CSTOVN CSTGAS CSTTAR

H/HR
t S /BTU)
(l/TOH)
OVER 17.8)
PtRSBL 0 R G S 9 L H2nBl
ASKBt
(COMPOSlTinN Of BLf - N D COAL)
BLEND

COSTOL

COST CF BLENO COAL J/TON

OF B L E N D COAL I N T O T A L CHARGED

COEFO

COEFl
( PYI

C0EF2
S (C0EF0+CQEF1T01ALSC0EF2T0TALS*2)

HFOSB

CPWNB
C
0
D0.4NE
F

NQB
C
D
NOE
F

J
K

J
K

G
DOWNH

euD

G
NOH

DELB (B-TOTAL COtL S )

C (C-TDTAL COAL ASHl
0 (O-COAL WT (TONS!)
DELE (t-FLUTHP (t.EG F)l
F (F-CQAL MOIST. AS CHGDl
G (G-PULV( -1/e INCH))
OELH IH-COKE S)
I (I-COKE ASH)
J (J-STBL)
K (K-COKE WT (TONS))

211
-6.05
3191.3
8.65
0.3052
46.7
43.6
17.72
44.2
933.0
0.02
0.0
0.0
35.0
.24158E5
0.92
50.0
0.95
1033.0
0.015
2585.0

.0025774
76.73
1.38
0.175
32.4
7.84
76.16
1.0
43000.
0.02
0.0
0.0
8.0
5
3
3
3
9
3

0.025
2.0
0.1
55.0
0.010
70.0

ALPHA
BETA
BRDNUT
FE203
BRSI02
BRAL20
STSI02
STAL20
CKSI02
.CKAL20
UTFD
FriSI02
VOBL
VN2BL
FREE
PRESUR
CONST
URKVOL
SLGTOL
SILTOL
WNDNSZ <I> I=l5
BRriNSZ(I) 1=6,7
cstbrd
cststn

1.28
0.0
3.2
75.42
4.7
1.49
21.5
1.1
30.0
0.02
0.0

.00142
6.96
.585
22.57
1.3
4.74
0.0
0.35
10.0

0.05

0.0000010

100.0

5
4
2
3
4

7.52
0.4
55500.0
0.71
0.500

downh
J

noh
(h =
"J
and the
(J =
<1 =
(n =
(p =
(r =

delh
cokes
J
same for
stbl
bratio
bltniPk
hmS
hmtmpf)

DELTA
FEO
BRMGO
STMGCO
CKMGO
FDCAO
BUNKER
CPSL
VC02TG

csthnk

cstbfa

downi
i = cokash)
k
the followina
k = cokwt)
ni = scfntni)
o = hmut)
a = hmSi)

0.0
0.0000015

0.24
0.05
1000.0
0.04
0.25

GAMMA
FE304
BRCAO
STCACG
CKCAO
FDAL20
GRBLST
SCRLOS
VCOTG
CKTOL

(i/btu for aas

from fee)

<$/lb of oil)
"
($/ton for aaar stone)
($/tori for met brdn matl)
TFC - total daily fixed costs

-.304
2.305
.0125
0.0
14.9
1.67
1.0
0.215
80000000.

noi
k

deli

EPSILON
BRH20
BRSULP
STSULP
CKOXID
FDMGO
BUNKRS
CPHM
GLOSS

cststd
($/btij for das to
heat stoves)

212

0.17
45.0
192.0
0.71
0.015
0.500
2585.0
0.71
0.005
0.500
2350.0
CSTCAC
PCMG
CSTHM
($/TON
FOR METAL
LOSS COST)
DOUNO
P
Q
R
DOUNS
T
U
V

0.93
85.0
200.0
3
9
4
3
3
9
4
3

0.0175
0.04
0.010
0.25
70.0
0.04
0.005
0.25
90.0

CSTMGC
CSTLIM <$ PER LB. ACTUAL COMMERCIAL REAGNT)
PCCAC2
<UT y. MG IN MGCOK AND CAC2 IN CARBIDE)
STDTMP
(USU. TEMP
DROP - RNR
TO BOF)
NOO
BELO (HMWTIN)
P
P <HMSIN)
Q
Q (SILIN)
R
R (TMPIN)
NOS
BELS (HMWTOUT)
T
T (SOUT)
U
U (SILOUT)
V
V (TMPOUT)

213

0.0

0,70
0.20

4.50
.050

0.10
.013

0.025

2920.

400000.
500000.

0.0

0.70

.080

.015

.040

77.

130000.

99.8
3.0
92.0
35.0
2.8983e6
192.0
0.71
0.005
0.500
2350.0

-200.
2920.
5.0

22000.
0.16
500.0

2.0

3000.

4.0

0.0

0.111
4.0

9900000.
0.0

10.0

16.0

250.0

15.0

280.0

30.0
0.04
0.005
0.25
90.0

35.0

91.0

0.0025

355.0

HM
X
MN
C
PHOS
X
X
STEEL
SI
MN
C
P
S
TMP
NSCRPS (NO. POSSIBLE SCRAPS)
SCRAP
SI
MN
C
P
S
TMP
FSCRAPl <I) 1=1f7 (SAME AS ABOVE) MAY NOT NEED TO USE
FSCRAP2 (I) 1=1r7 (SAME AS ABOVE) MAY NOT NEED TO USE
P0XY02
T02
OXYFLO
FDLOSS
TCG
RC02
BR
TS
XSFEO
FV23RS
PORFEO
PCSIOR
A
BELT
EPS
BSCHTP
CONSTM
DOUNHR
BSHTSZ
BSPROF
STLCST
TFC - total weekly fi ed cost - see cost chapter BScost 1=HM 2=SCR 3=0RE 4=LIM 5=SPAR <5=02TH 7=FEMN
DOWNS MANYS
WIDTHS
(S=FOR HMUT)
T
T
(T=FOR HMS)
DOWNT
U
U
U
(U=FOR HMSI)
V V
V
(V=FOR HMTMP)

EST UT
REGD WT

88.

EST UT
HLOSS
OREFRC

25
0.0
1.02
4.2
0.4
2250.
8.0
80.0
0.92
7.52
50.0
0.4
0.95
55500.
1033.
0.71
0.015
0.50
2585.0
0.71
0.005
0.50
2350.0
run
NO ED
RUN
STOP

0
5
5
4
3
2
3
5
5
3
4
3
2
3
3
9
4
3
3
9
4
3

0.0
0.04
0.25
0.05
100.0
2.0
5.0
0.025
0.24
2.0
0.05
0.10
1000.0
55.0
0.04
0.010
0.25
70.0
0.04
0.005
0.25
90.0

APPENDIX C
PROGRAM LISTINGCOALS.TAB

215

216

PKOGBXn COALS
1

PROUHAM COALS (INPUT,OUTPUT,TAPE5=INPUT,TAPE6=OUTPUT)

PHOl-.HAM COALS (I tIPUT,OUTPUT,TAPE1,IAP5=1HPUT,TAPE6-=0UTPUT)
C - FIH5T: DIKUNSION AMD DATA STATEMENTS

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

10

15

20

25

- DATA STATEMEHXS GIVE COEFFICIEHTS HEPRESKHTING CHARACTERISTIC

- CURVES fOH THE I-TU SIZE FRACTION AKD THE J-TIl OPTION FOB
- THAT 1-TH SIZE
- IP SECJIE.'ITED, FOB EXAMPLE:
CUflV(lSlZE, LOPTK.L) = 3 .a 5
08,.Od,
.50, A (T),D(T),C(0) TIIBU C(5)
A ( r i ) ,U ( 3 ) ,SGUP,SGL'OKN, AND HIGHEST HEAR-GBAVITX :
- IF ENTIRE CURVE IS REPBLSENTED, HAVE FOR EXAMPLE:
CURV ( r 5 I '^E,I0PTN,L) =1,-.il5,.50,C(0) T!1RU C (5) ,SGUP,SGDOWM,:EAR-GBAV
- FOB POLYHOftlAL, HAVE 6 COEFFICIENTS SUCH THAT BECOVEBY IS CALCULATED FOR EXAMPLE BY: KECOV = C(0) C(1)BELTSG C (2J DELTSG2
C(J) DELTSG**3 + C (M) *DELTSG*I t C (5J DELTSG5
- FOB HYPERBOLIC, HAVE 2 COEFFICIENTS: BECOV = A + (S/DELTSG)
DIMENSION WGHT(10,3), WTPYS(10,3), WTASU(J0,3), SGHIOS(IO)
DIMENSION WITHIH(8), WINIHVCJ)
DIMENSION CUBV (3,6,18), NOOPT (3), CSTDTA (3,6,6)
DIMENSION C0EF(8), COEFTP (0), C0EFBT(8)
DIMENSION T0T0fiS(3)
DIMENSION TEP(6), FLTASH (6), FLTSUL (6), SIZB(6)
DIMENSION APRXPD(H), ATAB 1 {a3 ,110)
COHMON/ONE/ATAB (3,'40), UPBHD(ai), TPVAL(li)), DTnVAL(l'J)
DIMENSION STKCVRCtO), CLKSUL (16), CLHAsa(16)
DIBBHSIOH QTABLE{100), ITADLE(IOO)

30

35

10

15

50

55

C
C
C
S SIZE IS COAL AS SLIMF -100B
C
Z SIZE IS COAL *1008 -35H
C
C - HYDBOCYCLONE - Z SIZES - OPTION 1
DATA (CUBV (1, I,L) .L=1, 12) /I.0,-.60 55,H9 - 3068,-99. 0151, 17.7952,
1 197.1197, -35.0916, -228.362, 2.2, 1.1, 20./
C - TABLE - Z SIZES - OPTION 2
DATA(CURV(1,2,L) ,L=1,12)/1.0, -.50, .60, 52.2295, -113.188,
1 91.3523, 273.017, -230-186, -236.826, 1.9, l.t, 10./
C - SPIRAL - Z SI7.ES - OPTION 3
DATA (CUBV (1,3,L),L=1, 12)/1.0, -.50, .10, 50.78, -156.631,
1 23.1116, 589.25, -28.133, -963.6, 1.9, 1.1, 10./
C
C
M SIZES IS COAL 35K -1/1 INCH
C - BAUM - M SIZES - OPTION 1
DATA(CURV(2,1,L) ,L=1,12)/1.0, -.15, .55, 53.2011, -211.009,
1 31.31, 778.985, -125.391, -1081. 15, 1.8, 1.1, 8-/
C - DM CYCLONE - M SIZES - OPTION 5
DATA (CURV (2,2,L), L= 1, 18)/3.,-.1, -.08, .08, .5, 102.671, .90595,
1 19.1331, -591.323, -1132.6, -108225., 1856875., 32629159.,
2 -1.21312, .902055, 1.8, 1.35, 10./
C - HYDBOCYCLONE - H SIZES - OPTION 6
DATA(CU,'iV(2,3,L) ,L=1, 12)/1.0, -.15, .55, 51.262, -188.353,
1 56.3189, 585.21, -211.117, -766.901, 1.9, 1.35, 20./
C - TABLE - H SIZES - OPTION 7
DATA (CUHV{2,1,L) ,L=1,12)/1.0, -.35, .22, 52.2371, -289.515,
1 -11. 1613, 1557.89, 11.9965, -3031.66, 1.65, 1.35, 10./

217

PnoURAn COALS

c -

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
C - TUB FOLLO'.'ING DATA STATEMENTS CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING ITEHS
C
IN OHDER: (1) CAPITAL COSTS $/TOH HOUBFEED, (2) TONS H20/
C
TON PEED, (3) POHEH EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
C
DIHECT COST, (1) REAGENTS J/TON FEED, (5| HEDIA LOSS
C
LD/ TON FEED, (6) MEDIA COST J/LB
C
C
VZ - OPT 1
DATA(CSTDTA(1,1,I) ,I = 1,6)/11800., 0.75,
0., 0., 0./
C
TZ - OPT 2
DATA(CSTDIA(1,2,I) ,1=1,6)/12000.. 0. 50, 8.0, 0-, 0., 0./
C
SP Z - OPT 3
DATA(CSTDTA(1,3,I) ,1=1,6) /inso.. 0.50, 8.0, 0., 0., 0./
CD

CO

95

C
1, SIZES IS COAL +1/4 incn
C - Dtl VKSSEL - L SIZES - OPTIOM 8
UATA (CUnV(3, I,L) ,L=1, 1b)/3.0, -.K, -.03, .05, -35, 101.367,
1 .99513, 51.1937, -1253.7, abll.S, 167018., -1.708b1E*6,
2 1 . 6 a 9 1 5 E + 6 , -2.3'I903, . 7 6 0 7 2 1 , 1 . 6 5 , 1 . 3 5 , 8 0 . /
C - D A U S - L SIZES - OPTION 9
0ATA(CURV(3,2,L),L=1, 1B)/3.0, -.35, -.05, .1, .35, 1011.933,
1 1 . 3 H 0 7 9 . 5 0 . 6 9 0 9 , - 6 9 9 . 3 3 , - I U a . 2 3 1 , 6 5 3 6 8 . 2 , 4 1 6 9 6 . , - 3 . 3 ' 3 a U E *6
2 ,-7.05709, 2. 19237, 1.65, 1.K, B./
C - DH CTCLONE - L SIZES - OPIION 10
UATA(CUBV 13,3,L),L= 1, 1b)/3.0, -., -.05, .03, .30, 101.812,
1 .305501, 50.1661, -1558.HU, 163.937, 3H781tl(., 2.2b615E*5,
2 0.0, -2.5U<)3, -526519, 1.65, l.t, UO./
C
CC - IIYDKOCYCLOKE - L SIZES
C
DATA (CUBV (3,U,L) ,L=1 ,18)/1.0, -.10, .55, S1.381tt, -238.078,
C
1 37.6393, 1008.94, -210.817, -1581.96, 1.85, 1.1, 20./
CC - CHANCE COHE - L SIZES
C
DATA(CUnV(3,5,L),L=l, 18)/3.0, -.3, -.07, .07, .50, 101.713,
C
1 .773653, 18.9979, -972.718, 1915.32, 108910., -205378-,
C
2 -6.10235E-fa, -1.30136, .817528, 1.60, 1.35, 15./
CC - TABLE - L SIZES
C
DATA(CUHV(3,6,L),L=1,18)/3.0, -.35, -.08, .1, .15, 107.205,
C
1 1.8585, 19.1177, -659.272, -1310.82, 65978., 198578.,
C
2 -1.18118E6, -3.13938, 1.11932, 1.65, 1.1, 10./
C .
C
C
OPTION 11 = FLOTATION OP Z-SIZES
C
OPTION 12 = FLOTATION OF S-SIZES
C
OPTION 13 = DISCARDING OF S-SIZES (SLIMES -100H)
C

100

105
c
C
110

c
c

JH - OPT 1
DATA(CSTDTA(2,1,I), I=1,6)/10000., 1.8, 8.0, 0., 0., 0./
Cfl - OPT 5
DiTA(CSTDTA(2,2,I),I=1,6)/1Q700.,0.52,8.96,0.,0.8,0.01/
un - OPT 6
DATA (CSTDTA(2,3,I),1=1,6)/ 9900., 0-72, 8.8, 0., 0., 0./
T - OPT 7
DATA(CSTDTA(2,1,I),I=l,6)/10000., 0.18, 8.0, 0., 0., 0./
VI - OPT 8
DATA (CSTDTA(3,1,1) ,1=1,6)/ 7875.. 0.50, 8. 16, 0.,0.7,0.on

218

PROSBAtl COILS
115

C
C
C

120
C
C
125

C
C

JL - OPT V
DATA(CSTDTA(3,2,I) ,1=1,6)/ 7500., 1.75, 8.0, 0., 0., 0./
CL - OPT 10
DATAICSTDTA(3,3,I) ,1=1,6)/ 8025.,0.50,8. 9fa,0.,0.75,0.OH/
WL
DATA (CSTDTA (3,t,I) ,1 = 1,6)/ 7125., 0.69, 8.8, 0., 0., 0./
CC L
DATA(CSTDTA(3,5,I) ,I = 1,6)/7500., 1.5, U. 0, 0., 0., 0./
TL
DATA(CSTDTA{3,6,I) ,I = 1,6)/7500., 0.116, 8.0, 0., 0,, 0./
FLOTATION S-SIZES AND Z-SIZES, DOTH
DATA (CSrD'rA(1 ,1,I) ,1=1 ,6J/Iif000., 1.8, 8.0, 0.50, 0., 0./

130

135

C
C
C
C

c
c
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
MI = 5
NO C 6
KOOPT(I) =3
K'OOPT (2) = <1
N00PT(3) = 3

lOO

ms

150

155

160

165

OPriOH I I = FLOT Z-SIZE

OPTION 12 = FLOT S-SIZE
OPTIOM 13 = DISCARD S-SIZB

C
C - INITIALIZE QTADLE TO ALL +10000
C
DO 15 I = I,100
QTADLE (I) = 10000.
15
COHTINUK
C
C
C - INPUT DATA - (1) SP. GR. BANGE MIDPOINTS, (2) DIRECT HT :
C
Fnoa WASIIADILITY TESTS FCH EACH SP.CB. tRACTIOtI, (3) DIRECT
C
WT : PTRITIC SULPHUR, (i) DIRECT WT : ASH, (5) COEFFICIEBTS
C
OF POLrUOnlAL CURVE OF WEIGHT : UITHIN /" 0.1 SP.CR.
C
: = F(SP.GB.), (6) COEF. OF INVERSE POLt SP.GR. = G (HT;)
C
C - NOWASH = NO. OF DIRECT HI : HASHAB CURVES - HFOB TOTAL) OB 3
C
(FOB THE THREE SIZES Z,M,L)
BEAD (NI, 20) NOSGS, NOWASH
20
F0Rn*T(5Il)
C - LAST 2 DATA OF VECTOB ABE UPPER ADD LOWER DOUKDS OF POLT
C
APPLICIDILITlf.
NOCOEF = 6
1IC0PP2 = MOCOEF 2
BEAD(NI,25) AInS, AIHTLR, AIHINC, NAId
25
FOUMATC3FI0.3,110)
Ains = Ains - AiniNc

c
170
26

READ(Kl,26) DOVHD,
READ(Nl,26) DOUNC,
EEAD(HI,26) DQVKD.
FOI(HAT(F10.3, 110,

NOB, DELB
HOC, DELC
NOD, DBLD
riO.3)

219

PROGRAn COALS

175
30

180

185

190
10

195

200

50
C

205

C
C
C
60

210

215

C
C
C

BEiD(!JI,30) (WITHIN (I), I=1,HC0FP2)

BEAD(HI,30) (WINIHV(I), 1=1,1)
F0H.1AT ((iFlO. 3)
RBAD(!II,30) (FLTASH (I) ,I=1,)
i.EAD (NI,30) (FLTSUL(l),1=1,1)
READ(N1,30) (SGMIDS(I), I=1,N0SGS)
J INDEXES THE SIZE BAHGES - CAM BE EITHER 1 OB 3
J = 1
IP(HOASH .EO. J) GO TO 10
READ(NI,30) (WGHT{I,J), 1= 1, NOSGSJ
NSGSP1 = HOSGS 1
HEAD(NI,30) (WTPTS(I,J), 1=1,1ISGSP1)
fiEAD(NI,30) (WTASHII,J), I=1,NSGSP1)
nEAD (NI,30) TOTOHS(J)
fiEAD(NI,J0) <SIZE(I),I=1,6)
READ(HI,30) COLCSI.TOHSnQ.WAGE, DPIHHI,DISTHC
GO TO 60
HSGSP1 = HOSGS 1
DO 50 J=1,3
EEAD<KI,30) (WCHT (I,J), 1=1,HOSGS)
READ (Kl,30) (WTPlfS (I,J), I=1,NSGSP1)
BHAD(hI,30) (WTASH(1,J). I=1,NSGSP1)
READ (HI, 30) TOTOHS(J)
READ(HI,30) (SIZE (I),1=1,6)
READ (Kl,30) COLCST,TONSUQ,HAGE,DPTflI,DISTHC
CONTINUE
LARGE DO-LOOP TO IHCHEtlFNT AI.1S OVER THE (NAIM) VABIOUS
VALUES FHOa AIMS INITIAL VALUE TO AIHS (NAIH*AiniHC)
DO 2000 IIIMC = 1 ,HAin
AIHS = AIMS AIMIHC
AinSUP = AIHS AXdTLB
AinSDH = AIHS - AIUTLB
sunrLD = 0.0
KOUNTR = 0

- CLEAN DP ATAB EVERltTJHE IT IS OSED

DO 601 1=1,12
DO 601 J=1,10
ATAB(I,J) s 0.0
220

225

601
CONTINUE
C
C
C
C - ARRANGE ATAU CONSTANT VALUES
C
FOB Roa 2 - TONNAGE
ATAB (2,1) = TONSBQ
DO 5010 UK = 15,39,2
ATAD(2,UK)
1.0

220

PBOGRXn COALS

230

5010
C

235
5020
C

240
5030

COHTIKUE
FOU ROWS 20 THRU 32 - DIG H
DO 5020 UK = 20,32
JJK = UK - 18
KJK = (2 JJK) + 11
ATAB(UK,JJK) = -1000.
ATAD(UK,KJK) = 1.0
CONTINUE
FOB BOWS 33 THRO 38 - SIZE RELATIOHS
DO 5030 UK = 15,20
ATAB{33,IJK) = -SIZE(2)
ATAB(3^,1JK) = -SIZE(3)
ATAB(35,UI!) = -SIZE{a)
CONTINUE

DO SOtO UK = 21,28
ATAa(33,IJK) = vSIZEd)
215
5040

250
5050

255
5060

260
5070
5080

2GS
5090
270

5100
5110

ATAB{36, UK) =-SIZE(3)

ATAB(37,UK) = -SIZECJ)
COMTIHUB
DO 5050 UK = 29,31
ATAB(3',UK) = *SIZE(1)
ATAB(36,UK) = SIZE(2)
ATAa(38 ,UK) = -SIZE(l|)
CONTINUE
DO 5060 UK = 35,10
iTABt35,IJK) = +SIZE(1)
ATAB(37, UK) = SIZE(2)
ATAil(38,UK) = -fSIZEP)
CONTINUE
FOB ROWS 39 THRU l2 TO HELP GET INITIAL FEASIBLE
DO 5070 UK . 39,2
ATAB(UK, 1) = 1.0
CONTINUE
DO 5080 UK = 2,4
ATAB(39,UK) = 1.0
CONTINUE
DO 5090 UK = 5,8
ATAB(40,UK)
1.0
CONTINUE
DO 5100 UK = 9,11
ATAB{41,UK) = 1.0
CONTINUE
DO 5 1 1 0 UK = 1 3 , 1 4
A'rAD(42,UK) = 1.0
CONTINUE
ATAB(39, 12) = 1.0

275

C*********************

280

C
C
C
C
C

FOB Roas 3 AMD 4 - SULPnOB

AND ROUS 5 AND 6 - ASU
POSSIBLE FEASIBLE RANGE FOR JIIRT IS THICE THE
AIMS RANGE FOB CLEANING PROCESSES
ATAB(3,1)
ATAB(4,1)
ATAB15, 1)
ATAi)(6.1)

285

=
=
=
=

( AiaSDN - AIHTLR) TONSHO

( AINSUP AIHTLR) TONSRQ
0,0 TOllSRQ
20.0 * TONSBQ

C*********************************

221

PKOGRAH COALS
C

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
290

295

C - ASSUniHG 70: BECOVEHT FUOH ENTIHE PLANT, CALCULATE

C
APPHCXIHATE TONS OF FEED UOING THRU EACH SIZE FBACTIOH
C
PROCESS
DO 65 1=1,4
APHxrn(ij = {sizE(rj/i00.0) (tousbq/o.7)
65
CONTINUE
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

c
*>*************************
c * * * * * * * * * * * * * DIG N E S T E D D O - L O O P F O L L O W S
*********************************

c
300

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

70

DO 900 ISIZE = 1,3

nl = NOOPT{ISIZE)
DO 900 lOPTN = 1, B1
1SIZE2 = ISIZE
KCDNTB = KOUNTB * 1
IF(HOWASU .0> 1) ISIZE2=1
C - KNOWING COEFFICIENTS OF FUNCTIONS; SP.GB. = F (: WITHIH */- .10)
C
AND : WITHIN .10 = G(SP.GB.), USE THE FIHST FUHCTIOH ABO
C
SET SPGB AT XX: WITHIN +/- -10 SPGB
C
XX = 5.0
CALL BIGHTP(WININV,XX,SPGB)
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DO 80 I=>1,6
TEHPJI) = CSTDTA (ISIZE, lOPTM, I)
80
CONTINUB
C - NOW, C A L C THE COST O F THIS OPTION/SIZE COnBINATIOn
CALL CALC(TEnP, AFBX FD(ISIZE),COLCST, W AGE, DPTNBI, DISTHC,
1CYCOEF,COSTC,COSTB)
C
C - THIS RETURNS CAP. COST AND CLEAN/BEFDSE COSTS FOB SLIBB
C
FLOTATION 0Pri01{12)
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

c
c
c
C - FOB ORGANIC S CALCULATIONS LATEB, CALC THE PERCENT COAL
C
. AND VB IN THE FEED (PCCOLF), OH DRY BASIS, BY SDBTRACTIBG
C
THE PYRITIC S AND ASH OF FEED FBOB THE BASIS OF 100. TBEH
C
CALC TRUE ORGANIC S PEBCENT AS IF ALL ORG S IS IH COAL
C
AND VB ONLY
TOTPYS = WTPIS(HSGSP1,ISIZE2)
TOTASU = WTASH(H3GSP1,ISIZE2)
PCCOLF = 100. - TOTPYS - TOTASH
TRDORS = (TOTOHS (ISIZE2) 100.) / PCCOLF
C
C - CHECK IF CHABACTERISTIC CURVE IS SEGBENTED OB ENTIHE C
DEPENDING ON RESULT, GO TO ONE OF TWO PARALLEL PATHS FOB
C
REBAIHDER OF CALCULATION OF THIS OPTION/SIZE COBBO.
C
IF (CUBV (ISIZE,lOPTN, 1) .EQ. 3.0) GO TO 400
C

222

PBOBBin COiLS

c
3H5

350

3SS

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

Lourc UELOW FOB EHTIBE CUBVE

C * - CONVERT 3 DIMENSIONAL CUBV TO 1 DIMENSIONAL COEF VECTOB
C
THAT WILL BE PASSED TO POLYNOMIAL EVALUATOB
DO 90 L=1,6
COEF(L) = CURV(ISIZE,I0PTH,L*3)
90
CONTINDE
POLYDN = CUBV (ISIZE,lOPTN,2)
POLYDP = CUBV(ISIZE,10PTH,3)
BND'JPB = CUBV (ISIZE.lOPTN,10)
Bh'DLOW = CURV (ISIZE, lOPTN, II)
PCVSUP = CURV (ISIZE,lOPTH, 12)
C
C - ENTBY POINT FOB ITERATIVE CALCULATIONS BELOW - FIHO
C
: WITHIN V- -10 SP.GB.
C
100
IF(SPGB .GT. WITHIN (7)) GO TO 120
IF(SPGH .LT. WITHIN(8)) GO TO 120
CALL POLYEV (WITHIN, SPGB, PCWIN)
C
c * - CHECK IF : WITHIN .10 IS INSIDE LIMITS - NOTE: ASSUME HEBE
c
THAT : WITHIN .10 IS MONOTONIC FUNCTION, WITH DECBEASIIIC
C
: WITHIN
AS SPGH IS INCHEASED
C
IF(PCWIN .LT. PCWUUP) GO TO 120
GO TO 300

**

c * - CHECK IF SPGB IS .GT. UPPEB SG BOUND OB .LT. LOWER SG BOOaO

C
120
IF(SPGR .LT. BNDUPB .AND. SPGB .GT. DNDLOW) GO TO 200
IF(SPGB .GT. ENDUPB) SPGB = BNDUPB
IF (SPGB .LT. ENDLOW) SPGB = BNDLOW
GO TO 300
C
**
C - CALC ACTUAL YIELD, PYBITIC S, ORGANIC S, TOTIL S,
C
AND THEN CHECK IF THE PABAMETER FOR ITERATION IS
c * * *
WITHIN ITS BOUND FOR EACH SIZE/OPTIOH COMBINATIOB.
C
200
YIELD = 0.0
MINYLD = BO.O
DO 210 K=>1,H0SGS
DELTSG = SGMIDS(F) - SPGB
IF(DELTSG .LT. POLYEN) DELTSG = POLTDS
IF (DELTSG .GT. POLYUP) DELTSG = POLYOP
CALL POLYEV (COEF, DELTSG.CRVYLD)
YIELD = YIELD CDVYLDWGHT (K,ISIZE2)
PIBITS = (CRVTLDWGHT (K, ISIZE2)'WTPYS (K,1SIZE2)) fPYBITS
ASH = (CBVTLDWGHT(K,IS1ZE2) WTASH(K,ISIZE2)) ASH
210
CONTINUE
PYBITS = PIBITS / HELD
ASH = ASH / YIELD
YIELD = YIELD/100.0
c * - CALC PYRITE AND ASH CONTENTS TO REFUSE BY 2 MASS BALANCES
PYSBEF = (TOTPYS100.)-(PYBITSYIELD)/(100.-YIELD)
ASHREF = (TOTASH100.)-(ASH*YIELD)/(100.-IIELD)
C * * - XHEN CALC PEBCEBT COAL AND VM TO PBODUCT (PCCOLP)

223

PBOSBtH COILS
too

<i05

10

AND TO BEFDSE (PCCOLB) OH DBT D&SIS

PCCOLP = 100. - PiaiTS - ASB
PCCOLR = 100. - PISBEF - ASUBEF
C * * - THEN C&LC ORGANIC AND TOTAL SULPHURS AND CHECK IF TOTAL S
C
PARAflETER IS WITHIN RANGE - IF NOT INCUEnENT SPGB IS
C
PROPER OIRKCTION AND GO BACK TO TOP, OB IF OKAY, TUBM
C
GO BACK DOWN TO PBINTOUT
ORGS = (TBUORSPCCOLP) / 100.
ORGSRF = (TRUORS'PCCOLB) / 100.
TOTALS = OBGS PIRITS
IF(TOTALS .LE. AIHSOP .AND. TOTALS .GE. AIflSDN)GO TO 800

**
SGINCB = *0.005
IF{TOTALS .GE. AlflSDP) SGINCB=-SGIHCB
SPGB = SPGB - SGINCB
GO TO 100

415
C
c *

* * - THE FOLLOBING YIELD CALC ALSO INCLUDES ASH AND PYBITIC

C * *
C * *

120

1)25

1130

305

435

310
C

UKS

YIELD = 0.0
ASH = 0 . 0
PYBITS = 0.0
DO 310 K^I.NOSGS
DELTSG = SGfllDS(K) - SPGB
IF(DELTSG .LT. POLYDN) DELTSG = POLYDI
IF(DELTSG .GT. POLYUP) DELTSG = POLYOP
CALL POLYEV (COEF,DELTSG,CRVYLD) '
WRITE(NO, 305) DELTSG, CBVYLD
F0RI1AT(1X,"DELTSG,CKVYLD",2F10.J)
YIELD = (CUVYLDWGHI(K,1SIZE2)) YIELD
PYBITS = (CH?YLDWGHT{K,ISIZE2)'WTPYS (K,ISIZE2)) PYBITS
ASH = (CHVYLDWGHT ( K ,ISIZE2)'WTASU (K,ISIZE2)) ASB
CONTINDB

PYBITS = PYRITS/YIELD
ASH = ASH/YIELD
YIELD = YIELD/IOO.O
* - CALC OF ORGANIC AND TOTAL S C
SEE CCnSENTS IN ITERATION DO-LOOP ABOVE
PCCOLP = 100. - PYBITS - ASH
OBGS = (TOUORS*PCCOLP) / 100.
TOTALS = ORGS - PYBITS
GO TO 800

c******************* ******* ******************

c

c*********>******************

450

C - THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPflEHT IS PARALLEL TO ABOVE - THIS IS

C
FOB SEGMENTED CHABACTEBISTIC CURVES
C
400
410

455

THAT

C
300

440

CALC. YIELD IS BECALCULATED FOB LAST CALC ABOVE BUT

ELiai HATES ANOTUEB DO-LOOP LATEB

DO 410 L=1,6
COEF(L)= COHV (ISIZE, I0PTH,L*7)
CONTINUE
POLYDN = CUBV(ISIZE, I0PTM,2)
P0LYLT=CUBV (1SIZE,I0PTH,3)

224

PROCR &n CO&LS

POLTRT=CUHV (ISIZB, IOPTH,')
POLyUP =CUBV (ISIZE, lOPTH, 5)
ONDUPR=CURV (ISIZE,lOPTN,16)
BNDLOU = CUBV (ISIZE, lOPTH, 17)
COEFIP (1) =CUr. V (ISIZE.IOPTN.ej
C0EFTP(2)=CURV (ISIZE, I0PTH,7)
COEFDT (1) =CUI)V (1SIZE,I0PTH, 14)
COEFBT (2) =CURV (ISIZE, lOPTN, 15)
PCUHUP = CURV (ISIZE,lOPTU,18)

960

465

C
C - EHTBI POINT FOE IIEHillVE CALCOLATIOBS
C

c
470
500

475

IF(SPGR.GT.UITHIH(7))GO TO 520
IF{SPGB-I.X. WITHIH(8))G0 TO 520
CALL POLYEV (UITHIN,SPGB,PCWIH)

C - CHECK IF : WITUIH 0.10 IS IKSIDE HfllTS

C
IF{PCWIII.LI.PCUHUP) GO TO 520
GO TO 700
**********

C
480
C
C

LOGIC TO CHECK IF SPGR IS UITHIH BOONDS APPLICABLE TO TBAT OPtlOS

c
520

IF (SPGB.LT. BNDOPR.AHC.SPGR. GT.BNDLOU) GO TO 600

IF(SPGB.GT.BNDUFR) SPGR=BNDaPB
IF (SPCR. LT. BNDLOW) SPGB=EHOLOB
GO TO 730

485

Q
490

C - FOR CASES UilEH NOT SET TO LIMIT, CALC VAEIOOS PARAHETEBS AID
C
CHECK IF THE ITERATION PABAHETER IS HITHIN ITS LIBIT
600

IIELD=0.0

r;iMILD=80.0
495

500
1
1
505

610
510

DO 610 K=1,H0SGS
DELTSG =SGai DS(K) -SPGB
IF (DELTSG. LT. POLY DH) DELTSG=P0LTD>
IF(DBLTSiJ.GT.rOLYnP) DELTSG=POLTOP
IF (DELTSG. GE. POLYEK. AND. DELTSG.LE.POLTLT)
CALL HIPSV (COEFTP,DELTSG, CnvrLD)
IF(DELTSG.GT.POLYLT.AND.DELTSG.LT .POLtHT)
CALL POLYEV(COEF, DELTSG,CR7YLD)
IF (DELTSG. GE. POLYHT. AN D. DELTSG.LE.POLIDP)
CALL HYPEV (COEFBT,DELTSG,CRVYLD)
YIELD=(CaVYLD*GHT(K,ISIZE2)) YIELD
PYRITS= (CRVYLDWGHT (K, ISIZE2) WTPYS(K,ISIZE2))PIBITS
ASH = {CRVYLDUGHI(K,ISIZE2) WTASH(K,ISIZE2)) tASH
CONTIHOB
PYHITS = PYRITS / YIELD
ASH = ASH / YIELD
YIELD - YIELD/100.0

C - CALC ORGANIC AND TOTAL S AND CHANGE SPGB IF NOT VITHIR LIBIT

225

PBOSB&B CO&LS
PCCOLP = 100. - PYBITS - iSH
ORGS = (TRUOHS PCCOLP) / 100.
TOTALS = ORGS PYRITS
IF (TOTALS .LE. AIOSDP .AHD. TOTALS .GE. AXBSDH) GO TO BOO

SIS

******
SGINCR = 0.005
ir(TOTALS .GE. AINSUP) SGINCB=-SGHICB
SPGB = SPGB - SGINCB

S2a

GO TO 500
S25

530

535

50

C
C - FOB CASES UHH EITUEB SPGB IS SET TO LIBIT OB HELD IS >BIBILO
700
YIELD=0.0
PYRITS=0.0
ASH=0.0
DO 710 K = 1,H0SSS
DELTSG=SGBIDS(K)-SPGB
IF(DELTSG.LT.POLIDN)DELTSC=POLTDB
IF (DELTSG. GT.POLYOP) DEL1SG=P0LTDP
IF(DtLTSG.GE.POLYDN.AHD.DELTSG.LE.POLTLT)
1
CALL HYPEV(COEFTP,DELTSG,CBVILD)
IF(DELrSG.GT.POLYLT.AHD.DELTSG.LT.POLIHT)
1
CALL POLYEV (COEF, DELTSG,CBVILD)
IF(DELTSG.GE.POLrRT.AND.DELTSG.LE. POLIOP)
1
CALL HYPEV (COEFET, DELTSG,CBVILD)
WRITE(NO,305) DELTSG, CBVILD
IIELD= (CrVYLD'WGHT (K,ISIZE2)) YIELD
PYRITS= iCRVY.L0i(GHT(K, ISIZE2) KTPYS(K,ISIZE2) "PIBIIS
ASH=(CBVYLDWG1IT(K,IS1ZE2)'UTASU (K,ISIZE2)) ASH

S4S

710

550

555

560

565

CONTIMOE
PYBITS = PIHITS/IIELD
ASH = ASH/HELD
YIELD = YIELD/100-0
C - CALC ORGAHIC MID TOTAL S - SEE ABOVE COBBERTS
C
PCCOLP = 100. - PYBITS - ASH
OBGS = (TBUOBSPCCOLP) / 100,
TOTALS = ORGS PIRITS
C
C
DEBOG PRIST OUTS OF CALCOLATIOI
C
800
URITE(HO,805) lOPTH.ISIZE
805
FOHnir(UC," FOB OPTION NUBBEB",!'!,"
OP SIZE FBICTIOV",
1
II," :")
810
WRITE{HO,30) SPGR, YIELD, PYRITS, ASK,ORGS,TOTALS
WRITE (KO, 30) CYCOEF, COSTC, COSTB
CLNSUL(KOUNTR) = TOTALS
CLHASH(KCUHTB) = ASH
C
SUHYLD = SUBYLD YIELD
CXXZXXXZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTXZXXXXXXXXXXXXZZI

570

C - FILL Id ATAB COEFFICIENTS FOB APPBOPBIATE EflTHS

IF(ISIZE .GT. 1) GO TO 905

226

PBQSBAn

COAL::
AT*B(1,I0PTN t) = CTCOEF
IICOL = 2 lOPTH 13
lYBOU = 6 rOPTH
GO 10 915

C
905

C
910
585

C
915

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

C
C
900
C
C C
C
C

IFtlSIZE .GT. 2) GO TO 910

ATiB(1,I0PTK M) = CYCOEF
:iCOL = 2 lOPTH 19
lYHQM = 9 lOPIH
GO TO 915
ATAB(1,I0PTN*8) = CYCOEF
IICOL = 2 lOPTN 27
lYBOH = 13 lOPTH
ATAB CI,IICOL) = COSTC
ATAD(1,IICOL 1) = COSTS
ATAB{IYHOW, IICOL) = (YIELD / 100.) - 1.0
ATAB(lY!iOil, IICOL 1) = (YIELD / 100.)
ATAB(3, IICOL) = TOTALS
ATAB(<I, IICOL) = TOTALS
ATAB(5, IICOL) = ASH
ATAD(6, IICOL) = ASH
CONTINOE

CALCULATE FLOTATION CLEAN PEODUCT ASH AND PYBITIC SULPBOB

BY USING THE iVEKAGE YIELD FrC.1 ABOVE AND DETEflaiNIHG PYBIT AHO
ASH RECOVERIES FROH THE PCLYNOHIAL CURVES OF fiECOVEBT VS.
CLEAN PRODUCT YIELD. THEN CH.CULATE COSTS FOB THE FLOT. OPTB.
AVEYLD = SUMYLD / (HOaPT(l) NOOPT (2) NOOPT (3))
C - VALUES FOB TOTAL ASH AND S FOB THE "S" SIZE
C
RANGE AHE TAKEN AS THOSE FFOB "Z" HANGE
TOTASH = WTASH(NSGSP1, 1)
TOTPYS = WTPYS(NSGSP1,1)
C - EVALUATE PUBITE AND ASH RECOVERIES AND CALC FINAL PEBCEHTS
CALL POLYEV{PLTASH, AVEYLD, BECOVA)
CALL POLYEV (FLTSUL, AVtYLE, BECOVS)
ASH = (BECOVA TOTASH) / AVEYLD
P7HITS = (BECOVS TOTPYS) / AVEYLD
C - CALC ORGANIC S AND TOTAL S IN CLEAN PBODDCT
PCCOLF = 100. - TOTPYS - TOTASH
TBUOBS = (TOTOBS(I) 100.0) / PCCOLF
PCCOLP = 100. - PYRITS - ASH
OBGS = (TBUOBS PCCOLP) / 100.0
TOTALS = ORGS PYBITS
=
CLNSOL(KOUNTD
1) = TOTALS
CLNSUL(KOUNTR
2)
TOTALS
CLNSUL(KQUNTB 3)
0.0
CLNASU(KOUNTB
1) -= ASH
CLNASH(KOUMTB 2)
ASH
CLNASH(KOUNTB 3) E 0.0

625

C
C - CALC FLOTATION COSTS
DO 950 I=:1,6

227

PBOGRAn COALS
TEHP(I) = CSTDTA
950
CON'rINUB
C - CALC CAPITAL AND CLEANING COSTS FOB CLIME FLCT 0PTB12
C
CALL CALC(TEP,APiafD().COLCST, AGE, DPTBHI, DISTMC,
ICyCOEF.COSTC, COSTB)
c
C - ASSIGN VALUES TO MINT HiTRII FOB FLOTATION OPTIOS

640

6U5

650

I = 1
J -
WRITB(NO, a 0 5 ) I.J
WHITE (HO,30) AVEYLD.PyRITS, ASH,OBGS,TOTALS
WHITE (HO, 30) CYCOEF, COSTC, COSTB
C
C - IHPUT TO ATAR COEFFS - FOR FLOT OPTIONS
ATAB(3,35) = TOTALS
ATAB{3,37) = TOTALS
ATAB(it,35) = TOTALS
ATAB(,37) = TOTALS
ATAB(S,35) = ASH
ATAD(5,37) = ASH
ATAB(6,35) = ASH
ATAB(6,37) = ASH
ATAB(17,35) = (AVETLD / 100.) - 1.0
ATAB(17,3b) = AVEYLD / 100.

655

660

665

670

675

680

ATAB(18,37) = (AVEYLD / 100.) - 1.0

ATAU(18,38) = AVETLD / 100.
ATAB{1,12) = CTCOEF (APBXFD(1)/APHXFD(l))
C
C - nULT. CAP COST FOR S-FLOT ET BATIO OF SIZE (Z TO S), tIELOS
C
CAP COST FOB Z-SIZE FLCI CPTIOH (11)
C
A TAB (1,13) = CTCOEF
C
C - OPTION (12) IS S-SIZE FLOT
C
ATAB(1,35) = COSTC
ATAB(1,37) = COSTC
ATAB (1,36) = COSTB
ATAB(1,38) = COSTB
C - ASSIGN VALUES TO HINT OBJ FUNCTN FOB NO FLOTATIOV
C
ON THE -lOOn ("S") SIZES
C
SINCE HO CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS REQ'D IF THE COAL IS
C
SIHPLT OISCABDED, THEN ACTUALLT A CREDIT SHOULD BE GITBM
C
TO .THE CAP. COST COEFF FOB THE NO-FLOT OPTION OH S-SIZES.
C
THE CREDIT WILL BE A NEGATIVE 7/23+9+38+2H2 *1
C
TIMES THE INSTALLED CAPITAL COST FOUND FOR THE FLOT
C
S OPTION OSING THE DATA SHOWN OH P. 10U P&T FOR BLDC COSt.
C
CTCOEF = -.1207 CTCOEf
C
C - OPERATING COST WILL BE SIBPLI THE DEPRECIATED TOTAL
C
OPERATING COST FOUND FOB ALL REFUSE DISPOSAL
COSTC = COLCST (DPTHMIDISTKC)
COSTB = COLCST + 0.2877
C
C - FILL OUT THE MATRIX FOB THIS OPTIOH

228

PROGRAH CUALS
C

ATAD(1,ia) = CICOEF
ATAB(1,40) = COSTB
ATA3(2,39) = 1.0
ArAB(19,39) = -1.0
ATAb{32,ia) = -1000.
ATAB(32 ,aO) = 1.0

695

700

705

C
C - FINALLT CALL BIHT FOE SOLUTION OF THE TABLEAU
DO 1005 I = 1,2
C
WHITE (NO, 1001) (ATAB(I,J), J=1,aO)
1005
CONTINUE
1001
FOBnAT(1HO, 10D13.3/(1H , 10D13.3))
C
DO 1009 I = l ,a2
DO 1009 J = 1,0
ATAB1 (I, J) = ATAB(I,J)
1009
CONTINUE
C
CALL niHT(RESULT, STBCVH)

C
C
C

710

715

PER TON OF COAL WASHED, THE OUTPUT IS BESOLT/TONSBQ

CPTON = BESOLT / TOHSRQ

WRITE(NO,1010) AIMS, CPTOH
1010
FORMAT(IX,"THE COST PER TCB FOB OPTIHAL 8ASHIBG TO",
1 F5.3,'' : SULPHUR IS: "F6.3)
C
C - FIND CLEAN COAL SULPHUR AND ASH CONTENTS
C
J 0

FINALS - 0.0
FINASH = 0.0
C

720

DO 1970 I = ID,38,2
J = J 1

725

FINALS =
FINASH =
CONTINUE
FINALS =
FINASH =

1970

FINALS STRCVB(I) * CLNSDL(J)

FINASH STRCVB (I) CLNASa(J)
FINALS / TONSBQ
FINASH / TONSBQ

c
C - FIND CLEAN COAL S AND CLEAN COAL ASH INDICES - (KTS.KTASB)
lERB = 0

730

VBITE(HO,1971) FINALS, FIHASB

1971

FOBflAT (II,2F10.3,

C
735

7a 0

CALL FIND(FIHAL5, COUNE, NOB, DELB, KTS, lEBB)

1F(IEPR .EQ. 1) GO 10 2000
CALL FIND(FINASH,' DOWNC, HOC, DELC, KTASU, lERB)
IF(IRR .EQ. 1) GO TO 2000
C
C - PACK IWORD WITH THE OPTIONS FOR CLEANING THE COAL TO THIS
C SULPHUR LEVEL. EG IF BIT I (NUHBEDIHG FROH BIGHT) IS 1,
C THEN OPTION I IS CALLED FOR IN OPTIMAL SOLUTION.
C

229

PROCRAn COiLS
C -

INITIALIZE IWOED TO ALL 13 "OPFS"

C
IWOBD = 0

c
DO 19B0 IBT = 1,13
JDT = INT(STBCVB(IBT))
IF(JBT .EQ. 1) IWOBD = IWOBD .OR. 2IBT
OTHERMISE
CONUHDK

1980

c
c
755

760

765

770

c ******** DO-LOOP OVEH ALL *

C * VALOES OF CLEAH COAL WEIGHT **

C
COALWT = DOWND - DELC
DO 1990 KYWT = 1, HOD
COALWT = COALWT DELD
C
DEFINE KTHDX
CALL DEFINE(HOB. HOC, HOD, 0, KYS, KYASH,
S
KYWT, 0, KTNDX, LEBB)
IF(IEBR .EQ. 1) GO TO 1990
C
FILL OUT TABLES
C
NSHEMBEB THAT THE FLOISTUBE OF THE COAL
C
AS SHIPPED IS APPBOX 8 PEGCEKT SO FLULTIPLT TBE
C
COST PEB TON EKY COAL TIHES TONS WET/TOM STEEL
C
TIMES TONS DDI/TONS WET (0.92)
QTABL(KYHOX) = CPTOH COALWT 0.92
ITAULE{KYNDX) = IWOBD
1990
CONTINUE
c * KHD OP DO-LOOP *

775

C
C
2000
C

CONTINUE
XXXXXXXX

c
c
780

C FOB DIBECT SHIP OPTION

785

790

795

C - FINALLY FILL OUT THE TABLES FOB THE OPTION OF SIIIPLT SHIPPING
C THE COAL DIBECT. TOTAL COST PEB TON IS ONLY THE COST OF THE
C COAL ENTERING THE PBEP PLANT; AND THE COST TO SHIP IT.
C
CPTON = COLCST ( DPTNHI DISTNC 1.086)
C
SIHCE THE WET WET COAL/WT DBY COAL'1.086
C
C - FIND INDICES FOB COAL SDLPHUB AND ASB AND COLOHN INDICES.
C
SULPIN = WTPYS(NASGS^1,1) * TOTOBS(1)
LEBB = 0
CALL FIHD(SULPIN, COHNE, NOB, DELE, KYS, LEBB)
IF(IEF>K .EQ. 1) GO TO 3000
C
CALL FIHD(WTASH(1I0S6S^1,1), DOWNC, NOG, DELC, KIASH, LEBB)
IF(IEHO .EQ. 1) GO TO 3000

PUOSRAR COALS

800

C - MTER LAST DO>LOOP OVER COAL WTS. FOR SUIPPIHG DIRECT.

C
COALUT = DOWND - DELD
DO 2050 KYUT = I.HUD
COALUT = COALHT * DELD
lERR = 0
CALL DEFINE(NOD, MOC, HOD, 0, KYS, KYASU,
KYUT, 0, KYHDX, lEBR)
IF(IEBH .EQ. 1) GO TO 2050

80S

810

815

820

825

830

835

C
C
2050
C
c
c
3000
2055
C

QTADLE(KYHDX) = CPTON COALUT 0.92

ITABLE(KYNDX) = ALL BITS OFF
COHTIHOE

UKITE(HO,2055) (QTA0LE(I), 1=1,100)

FORflAT(10(F8.3,2X),//)

WRITE(HO,2057) (ITABLE(I), 1=1,100)

2057
FOHAT(tO(I8,2X) ,//)
C
c
c - SEHD THE DATA TO TAPE (TAPEl)
C
WRITE(1,2056) (UTABI.(I), 1=1,100)
2056
FORHAT(10F10.3)
C
c
WRITE(1,2058) (ITABLE(I), 1=1,100)
2058
FORBAT(IOIIO)
C
C
C
C
STOP
END

231

SUBROOTIHE CALC
1

C
c

SUDKOUTINE CALC(COSTS,APBXF,COLCST,WAGE,DPTNBI.DISTHC,
ICrcOEf.COSTC.COSTR)

DIHEKSION COSTS(6)

10

15

20

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
C - THE FOLLOWING SUEROOTIHE CALCULATES THE AFPhOXIHATE
C
CAPITAL AND DIRECT COSTS FOR THE "BOX" ONLY, IE. THAT PART
C
OF THE FLOWCHART WHICH CORRESPOHDS TO THE CLEANING
C
PROCESS ONLI. THE CAPITAL COST {"CYCOEF") IS THE
C
APPROXIMATE INSTALLED COST FOR THE PARTICULAR COAL
C
SIZE/CLEANING OPTION COHBINATIOH.
C - THE PROCESS IS SIZED UK ASSUMING AN OVERALL 70; TIELD
C
FOR THE PREP PLANT AND THEN ESTIHATING CAPITAL COS! Bf
C
HULTIPLriNG ANTICIPATED TONNAGE BY t /TON HOOK FEOn SINGH
C
(SEE REFERENCES)
C - DIRECT OPERATING COSTS ARB THEN CALCULATED BT SOnniHG
C
ONLY THE COSTS NOT COBHON TO EACH OPTION.
TOTCAP = COSTS(1) APHXF
C - AT 15 YEAR ST. LINE, 260 DAYS/YEAR, 13 HOURS/DAY, 10:
C
SALVAGE VALUE, THEH THE DEPRECIABLE CAPITAL IS:
CYCOEF = (TOTCAP 0.0666 0.9) / (260. 13.)

C
25

30

35

<0

t5

50

55

C
C - FOR OPERATING COSTS:
C
WATER COST AT 5 CENTS PEE THOUSAND GALLONS, 62.3 LB/FT3,
C
.1337 FT3/GAL, 2000 LB/ION,
WATER = COSTS (2) 0.05 0.2'011
C
DIRECT AND INDIRECT LABOR AND OVERHEAD 1.0 DIRECT,
C
0.15 SUPERV., 0.5 HAINT., 0.55 INDIRECT OVERHEAD,
C
0.2 PAYROLL OVERHEAD, 0.05 LAB QH, 0.02 CONTINGENCY OB
C
2.U7 16 HR/DAY 2 HEN / SHIFT
C
AND CONVERTING TO $ PER TON FO FEED BASIS:
CSTLBK = (2.<7 WAGE 32.) / (13. APRXF)
C
APPROX. DEPRECIATION IS FOR DEPRECIABLE CAPITAL
C
CONVERTED TO J/TON FEED BASIS
DEPUEC = CYCOEF / APRXF
C
CALCULATING TAXES AND INSURANCE AS 1.5: YEARLY OF TOTAL
C
CAPITAL (1.1'CYCOBF) CONVERTED TO J/TOU FEED BASIS
TAX = (0.015* 1.1 CYCOEF) / APRXF
C
FACTORY SUPPLIES AS .5: OF DEPRECIABLE CAPITAL
FACT = (0.005 CYCOEF) / APRXF
C
COHSIDEBIHG HAM RATBDIALS OH S/TOB FEED BASIS AS ABOVE
REAGNT = COSTSC*)
CHEDIA = COSTS (5) COSTS (6)
C
CALCULATING POWER AS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
C
DIRECT COST WHICH IS THE SUB OF DIRECT COSTS ABOVE
SUB = WATER*CSTLBB*DEPhEC-TAX-FACT*EEAGHT*CHEDIA
PCPOUR = C0STS(3) / 100.
POWEB = PCPOWR (SUB / (1.0 - PCPOWB))
C
CALCULATE SHIPPING COST PER TON OF CLEAN PRODUCT AS
C
DPTNBI S/TOH MILE IIBES DISTNC BILES TO BE SHIPPED
C
AND ADD THIS TO THE TOTAL COST PEB TOM OF CLEAN COAL
C
MULT. BY 1.086 SINCE MT WET COAL/WT DBY COAL
C
IS EQ TO 1.086 (IE INVERSE
0.92 AT 8 : H20)
SHIP = DPTNMI DISTNC

232

SDBBOaTlHE

CALC

60

65

C
C

TOTAL BELATIVE-OHLT EIBECT COSTS - KEGLECTIBG DEPB

(HANDLED IN CYCOEF) AND LABOB ( SAHE FOB ALL OPTIONS)
COSTC = HATEB+TAX FACTBEAGNT+CEDIAPOWEB+COLCST SaiP
C

C - ADD COST OP BEFUSE DISPOSAL PEB TON FOB THE BEFOSE

C
COEFFICIENT - SEE CALCULATIONS FOB COST OF BEFUSE BASED OB
C P 16-31 COAL PBEP.
BEFUSE = 0.2877
C O S T B = V A T E B f T A X * F A C T * B E A G N X * C n E D I A PO E B * C O L C S T BEraSE
C

C
70

BETOBN
EHD

233

SUDROQTINE BIGHTP

C
c
c

10

* * * * * * * * *

SUBROUTINE OIGHYP(D,X.ANSWER)
C - THIS SUBROUTINE EVALUATES THE HYPERBOLIC FONCTIOH,
C
OP THE FOBH SHOWN BELOW. AT THE POINT X, AND
C
RETURNS THE RESULT AS "ANSWEB"
DIMENSION B(2)
ANSWER = X / (B(1) X B (2))
lF(&tlSUEB .GT. 100.0) AMSUEB - 100.0
IF(ANSWER .LT. 0.0) ANSWER = 0.0
RETURN
END

234

SOBROUTINE HVPEV

10 .

SUUHOUriNE HVPEV (B, X, ANSWER)

C - THIS SUDROUIINE EVALUATES THE HYPERBOLIC FUNCTION AT POINT
C
AND RETURNS THE RESULTS AS "ANSWER"
C
DIr.EIiSIOH B(2)
AMSEB=B{1) (B12)/X)
IF(ANSUR.GT.100.0) ANSWEB=100.0
IF(ANSWEQ.LT.O.O) ANSUB =0.0
HETURB
END

235

SUBROUTINE POLYEI
1

C
c
c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

to

SUBROUTINE POLY EV (A, X, ANSWER)

C - THIS SUBROUTINE EVALUATES THE 5-TH ORDER POLYNOHAL AT THE
C
POINT X AND RETURNS THE RESULT AS "ANSWEB**
C
DIflENSION A (8)
AN3WER=A(1) A(2) X + A (3)X2+A ()X*3 + A (5) X*atA (6)
IF(ANSUER.GT.100.0)AHSUER=100.0
IF(ANSWEB.LT.O.O) ANSUER=<0.0
RETUBH
END

236

SUBROarXHE niHT
1

SDBROUTIMB BXHTCBESOLT, T)

C
c
S

C
C
C

THIS IS THE HIXED-IHTEGEB ALGORITHB 4S GITEH

"opriiiizATioM TECHHIODES WITH FOBTBAN" BI
KUESTER AND HIZE
- 1973 - FLCGBAW HILL
ENTERED 01 S.D. EHEBSON
6 JULT 1977

CCCCC
CCCCC
10
1

15

It

DOUBLE PBECISION DABS

DOUBLE PBECISIOH ATAB(76,50), aPDND(SI), TPV AL(17),BTMTL (17),
1 VAL(17), TBSAV (75,50), SAVTAU (76,580), T (50)
DOUBLE PRECISIDH SOLHIH,PCTTOL,TLRNCE,YVECT,ATAB11, AHAI,
RTJO,ALFA,ABTIO,ADEIT,Z0FT,ATAB12,X1,AnAZ2,AHAX3. ALU.

2
CCCCC

AUP,NTI02, DIFFL, DIFF2,DIFF,SVALW,AHDCTO

COKROK IB0(75), ITBBOH(75)

CCCCC
CCCCC
CCCCC

COKNOB ICOL(50),ITBCOL (50),ITAB (50)

COMHON ISVROH(75,16)
COHROli ISVBCL(16), IC0RR(16), ISTB(16)
coneoH KSVH(17)
COnaON/ONE/ATAB(U3,40),UPBNO (Ul),TPVAL(1<t),BTBVL (14)
COBaOK/TUO/VAL(l'l).TBSAV ('2,Q)
COnaON/BIG/SAVTAB (1*3, ll<i2)

CCCCC
20

COAHOH/THBEE/IRDU(U2) ,ITBB01F (42)

COn.tOK/FOUB/XCOL (0), XTBCOL (0),IVAH (0)

COKMON/FIVE/ISVROW(U2,13)
25
C

30

35

40

45

50

10
C
11
12
13
1U
15
C
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

C0na0N/SIX/ISVBCL(13) ,IC0HB(13),ISyH(13),KSTH(1<t)
DIHENSION T(UO)
ARRAI ITEHP USED FOR PACKED FCBOAT DATA IHPOT OHLI
DIHEMSIOM ITEBP17)
XI = 1.0
FOBBAT (lUO, (7010.3))
a^PACKED FORHAT HO. 11
FORaAT( 7D10.0
)
FORaAT( IX, 8D13.7)
FORSAT (1II0,2HPRmT COHTROL PABABETERS)
FORaAT(1H0,30UUPPB BOUND 08 VARIABLE 1 TO B)
FORBAT (20IU)
PACKED FOBBAT HO. 16
FOBBAT( 7(13,07.0))
FOHBAT(1H0,iaHBATBIX FORBAT CODE)
FOBBAT (UHOI =, I, 6110)
PORBAT(27IIOSTRUCTURAL VARIABLES: X (I))
FOBBAT(tUHOBOUS X COLUBNS AND NO. OF lUTEGEB VARIABLES//
1 I,2H X, 13, 24X, 16)
FOBBAT (30HUCONSTBAINT TYPES IB BOW ORDEB)
FOBaAT(52!lOHIPOT TABLEAU ECHO, CCHSIBAUIT VALDB LEFT. BY BOS.)
FOBBAT(1IIO, 10D13.3/(1H , 10D13.3))
F0BBAT(1H0,13HITERATI0H NO.,16)
FOBBAT( 1H0,8D13. 5/( IH , 0013.5))

26

FOBBAT( IH , 16, 7113)

27
29
30
35

F0RBAT(1HH14X,I5)
FORBAT(18H0TOLEBANCE SET AT E15.7,14H AT ITEBATIOH,l6)
FOBBAT (21H PBOBLEB NOT FEASIBLE)
FORBAT(21H0DBJECTIVE FUNCTION =, P15.7,14H AT ITEBATIOH,

C
55

40
42
45
46

16, 2F10.3, 13)

F08BAT(29HOCONTINDOUS SOLUTION COBPLETE)
FOBBAT (38H0FIHAL TABLEAU FOR CONTINUOUS SOLOTIOH)
FORBAT(aOHOCONTINOOOS SOLUTION IS INTEGER SOLUTION)
FOBBAT(1H0,30HNO INTEGER VARIABLES REUUESTED)

237

SUBBOtlTIME flIKT

50

PORNAT(23HOOPTIBALITr ESTABLISHED)

60

55
60

POR.1AT(J3llOPBOBLfl 700 DIG FOB HACHIUE SZZB)

FOBHATiSSU

65

65
70
75
78

)
FOIil1AT(30H0EHD OF PBOELEH, ITERATIOB HO-, 16)
FOHAT(2bHOBKANCll PCIHl INCREASED T01")
FORHAT (26H0BRAItCH POIHT DECREASED TOIM)
FOBRAT( 2aiI0INIIIAL HORKINS TABLEAO)

NI = 5

70

75

BO

as

90

95

100

105

HO = 6
CCCCC
READ ( H I , 15) ISIZE, HRBUHS
ISIZE = WflZ
KMBUHS = 1
C
IHITIALIZATIOa
68
CONTIHOB
INDCT7 = 1
KSV8(1) 1
IHDCTB = 1
ICKTB = 0
10UT1 = 0
II BOW = 1000
ADELT = S-OD-7

C
CCCCCCCCC
READ AND UBITE PROBLEfl IDEHTIFICATIOB: PUT 1 IB COL. 1
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
H HAD (HI, 60)
CCCCCCCCCCCC
aiTE(HO,60)
C***
C
I0aT2 = INITIAL UOHKINC TABLEAO
C
I0UT3 = CONTIHUOUS SOLUTION TADLEAO
CCCCC
CCCCC
CCCCC

READ (HI, 15) I0Ur2,100T3 ,IPACK

WRITE (HO, 13)
WRITE(HO, 15) IOUT2,IOUT3
I0UT2 = 0
IOOT3 3 0
IPACK 0

C
C
SOLMH OPPER BOOHD OH OBJ. FDHCTIOH FOR IHTEGEB SOLOTIOI
C
PCTTOL = IHPUT TOLEBAHCE AS FRACTIOH OF OBJECTI?E FUHCT. FOB COIT. SOL
C
SET EACH ZEBO FOB UHKHOWH PBOELEB.
CCCCC
REA0( HI, 11) SOLHIH, PCTTOL
S0L.1IH = 0.0
PCTTOL = 0.20
C***
C
IHPOT PABAHETEBS H = TOTAL HO. OF BOWS, B = TOTAL HO. OP COLS.
C
HZBIVR = HO. OF IRTEGEB VABIIBLFS
CCCCC
READ(HI, IS) n,H,HZB1TB
CCCCC
WBITE(H0,20) H, H.HZBIVB

n = 'J2

110

73
72

H = 00
HZB17B = 13
DO 72 1=1,1!
T(I) = 0.
Bnl = H-1
IF (SOLHIH) 786,787,786

7U
C
C
IHPOT DPPEB BOUHD OH OBJECTIVE FUHCTIOB

238

SUBBOUTIHE BIHT

IIS

786

787
120

125

130

135

190

1S

ISO

155

160

165

170

TLRSCE = SOLBIH
PCITOL = -1.
CO TO 90
not = 1
SOLHIN 1E35
IF(PCTTOL)90,788,90
PCTTOL = .1

788
C
C
INPUT UPPEB BOUNDS ON VARIABLES (ZEBO MEANS NO UPPEB OOOHD)
CCCCC90 REAI)(HI,11) (DPflND(I),I= I.HHl)
CCCCC
VRITE(.SO, 14)
CCCCC
WniTE(NO,10) (UPEND(I),I = I.HHl)
90
DO 92 I = 1,13
UPDND(I) =3 1.0
CONTINUE
92
DO 7002 I>=1<<,lia1
UPBNO(I) = 0.0
CONTINUE
7002
VRITE(HO,10) (OPBND{I) ,I=1,Nai)
CCCCC
c
c

IBOD (1)
0
c
CONSTRAINT TTPES: ( H , =0, -1)
BEAD(N1, 15} (IBUW (I),I = 2,n)
CCCCC
CCCCC
URITE(HO, 21)
CCCCC
WRITE(HO, 15) IIBOH (I) ,1=2,)
I30W(2) = 0
1B0B(3) = *1
inOW(ll) = - 1
1BQW{5) = *1
IR0tf{6) = -1
DO 70aa I =7,19
IBOU (I) = 0
700l
CONTINUE
DO 7006 I = 20,32
IBOU (I) = - 1
7006
CONTINDE
DO 7008 I = 33,38
I BOD (I) = 0
7008
CONTINDE
DO 7010 1 = 39,l|2
IROW(I) => 1
CONTINUE
7010
BRITE(NO, 15) (IBOB(I),
(IBOB(I), 1=1,B)
CCCCC
HRITE(NO,
C
C HATBIX FORMAT: PACKED = 1, DNPACKED = 0.
CCCCC
WHITE (BO, 17)
CCCCC
WBITE(N0,15) IPACK
CCCCC
IFtlPACK) 901,9U9,901
CCCCC901
DO 92 1=1,H
CCCCC
00 903 J=1,H
CCCCC903
ATAB(I,J) = 0.0
CCCCC90U
HEAD{HI,16) (ITEHP (K),VAL (X),K=1,7)
CCCCC
DO 907 L-1,7
CCCCC
IP(ITEWP(L)) 905,92,905
CCCCC905
K = IIEP(L)
CCCCC909
ATAD(I,K) = VAI.(L)

SOORODTIKB HIHT

175

180

185

190

195

200

CCCCC907
COMTmOE
CCCCC
GO TO SOU
CCCCC92 COHTINUE
CCCCC
GO TO 9510
C*
C
BE&D SATBIX ELEHEKTS
CCCCC99
DO 952 1=1,0
CCCCC
READ(HI, n )
, J-I.H)
CCCCC952
CONTIHUE
IF (a .LT. 2) GO TO 150
C
C
PRINT INPUT TABLEAU FOE EHBOE CHECK
9510
WRITE(N0,22)
C
DO 80 1=1,
C
UBITE(NO,23) (ATAB (I,J),0=1,H)
C80
CONTINUE
9520
DO 95') 1 = 2,8
IF(IROW{IJ) 953,9521,9521
9521
DO 9523 J=2,V
9523
ATAB (I,J) = -ATAB (I,J)
CO TO 95<t
953
ATAB{I.1) = -ATAB(I,1)
95a
CONTINUE
H50
COKTINOE
955
DO 98 1=2,H
1F(UPBND(I-1)) 96,96,98
96
UPBND(I-I) = 1E3
98
CONTINUE
C

205

210

215

220

225

C
COJIPUTE NO. OF I VECIOBS
981
YVECT = UPBND(J) 1.
IF(NZB1VB .LT. 2) CO 10 322
DO 982 I= 2,HZB1VB
982
IVECT = yVECT (UPSHO(I) 1.0)
322
CONTINUE
C***
C
SET SOLUTION VECTOR OF VARIABLES EQUAL TO ZEBO
C
AND SAVE ORIGINAL UPPER BOUNDS
985
DO 99 1=2,H
99
IVAB(I-l) = 0
C*
C
INITIALIZE ROW AND COLUHN IDENTIFIEBS, K = VARIABLE 10.
C
ZEBO = ZEifO SLACK, -K = POSITIVE SLACK
IF(H .LT. 2) GO TO 151
DO 102 1=2,B
IF(IBOW(I)} 100,102,100
100
IROM(I) = 1-1
102
CONTINUE
151
CONTIHUE
ATAB1 1 = ATAB(1,1)
IC0L(1) = 0
DO 103 J=2,B
IP (ATAB(1, J)) 102 2,1025, 1025
1022

DO 1023 1=1,a
ATAB(I, 1) = ATAB(I, 1) ATAD(I,J) OPBND(J-I)

240

SOBROATINB HINT
1023
230

235

210

215

250

ICOL(J) = 1000 J-1

GO TO 103
1C01.(J) = J-1
COHTIHDE

1025
103
C***
C
OUTPUT INITIAL TADLEAD
IF (I0UT2I 101,254, 10*1
101
URITE(HO,78)
CCCCC
WBITli(N0,26) (ICOL (J),J= 1, H)
DO 110 1=1,H
CCCCC
HDITE(NO,25] (ATAB(I,J),J:'1,H)
110
WRITE1N0,27) IHOU (I)
GO TO 259
C***
C
START DUAL LP
C
CHOOSE PIVOT BOW, nAIIHUH POSITIVE VALUE IN CONSTANT COLUBI
112
AHAIC = 0.0
IF (n .LT. 2) GO 10 152
DO 120 I '=2 ,n
IF(ATAB (I, 1)) 120,120,115
115
IF(ATAB(I,1)-AnAX) 120,120,117
117
AaAX=ATAB(I,1)
IPVB=I

120
255

260

265

270

275

280

2B5

ATAB(I,J) = -ATiB(I,J)

CONTINOe

152
C0NTIHU8
C**
C
IF NO POSITIVE VALUE, LP FINISHED (PBIHAL FEASIBLE)
IFlAnXX) 265,265,130
C
CBOOSE PIVOT COLUHN, ALGEEBAXCALLr BAXIflOB BATIO A (1,J)/A (PIVOTBOB)
C
FOR A (PIVOTROW.J) HEGAIIVB. IF NO NEGATIVE A (PIVOTBOfl,J) PBOBLEB
C
IS INFEASIBLE
130
ABAX = -1E3S
IF(N-2) 113,132,132
132
IPVC = 0
DO 110 J=2,8
IF(ATAB(IPVB,J)) 133,110,110
133
ETIO = ATAB(1,J)/ATAB<IPVB,J)
IF{BTIO - ABAX) 110,137,135
135
ABAX - BTIO
136
IPVC = J
GO TO 110
137
IPt*TaB(IPVB,J)-ATAB|IPVB,IPVC)) 136,110, 110
110
CONTINUE
IP (IPVC) 150, 113, 150
113
GO TO (115,135,512,610,665),IHDCTH
C PBOBLEB NOT FEASIBLE
115
WRITE(N0,30)
RESULT = I.0E*6
BETDBH
C
*
C
C*
C
CABRI OUT PIVOT STEP
150
ALFA = ATAB(IPVB,IPVC)
C
OPDATE TADLEAD
DO 180 Jcl,!

241

SUBROUTIHE HI.
IF(ATAB(IPVR,J)) 152,180,152
IF(J-IPVC) 153,180,153
ABTIO = ATAB(1PVB,J)/ALFA
DO 175 1=1,H
IF(ATAB(I,IPyC) J 157,175, 157
IF(I-IPVHJ 160,175,160
ATAB(1,J) = ATAB(I,J) - AHT10 ATAB (I, IPVC)
IF (ADS (ATAB (I,J) )-ADELT) 165, 165, 175
ATAD(I,J) = 0.0
CCNTIMUE
COHTIHDE
DO 190 J=l,ll
ATAB(IPVfl,J) = AIAB(lPVH,J)/AlFi

152
153
290
157
160
295

165
175
180
190

C***
300

EXCHANGE BOW AND COLDHH IDEHTIFIEBS

ISV = IHOW (IPVB)
IBOU (IPVR) = ICOL(IPVC)
IF(ISV) 197,195,197

305

C***
C
IF PITOT ROB 8AS ZERO SLACK, SET MODIFIED PITOT COLUBa ZEBO.

195

DO 196 1=1,A

196

ATAB(I,IPVC) = ATAB (I,H)

ICOL(IPC) = ICOL(H)

H = H-1
310
197
198
315

320

GO TO 200
DO 198 1=1,H
ATABd.IPVC) = -ATAB(I, IPVC)/ALFA
ICOL(IPVC) = IS*
ATAB(IPVB,IPVC) = 1./AL7A

C
COUMT PIVOTS
200
ICHTB = ICHTB 1
IF (IBOW (IPVB) 1000) 210,205,210
205
DO 207 J=1,B
207
ATAU(IPVR,J) = ATAB {n,J)
IROU(IPVB) = IBOII(n)

B = n-1
210

IF(IOUTI) 240,2505,240

C
325

330

335

3t0

C
OUTPDT CDRREHT TABLEAU
210
WRITE (H0,2a) ICHTB
CCCCC
WBITE(II0,26) (ICOL (J) ,J=1,11)
DO 250 K=1,fl
CCCCC
WBITE(H0,25) (ATAB (K,L),L=1,S)
250
WRITE (N0,27) IROW (K)
2505
GOTO (25i,251,252,253,2535).IMDCTR
C
C
IF SEEKIHG INTEGER SOLUTION, TEST OBJECTIVE FOHCTIOK AGAINST COBBK
251
IF (ATAD(1, 1) -TLBNCE) 251, 35, l35
252
IF (ATA8(1, 1)-TLRNCE) 25,52,52
253
IF (ATAB (1, 1) -TLRNCE) 25U,6 10, 610
2535
IF(ATAB (1, 1) -TLBSCE) 251,665,665

C***
C
IF CONSTANT COLUBH OF ZEBO SLACK ROW IS MEG..BEVEBSE SIGHS OF EHT
254
IF (B .LT. 2) GO TO 453
DO 260 K=2 ,B
IF(IBOU(K)) 260,255,260

SUBBOOTINE n i K I

3115

350

355

360

365

370

255
IF(ATAB(K,1)) 256,260,260
256
DO 258 L=1,ll
258
ATAB(K,L) = -ATAB(K,L)
260
CONTINOE
453
CONTIHUE
C
GO TO SEXf PIVOT STEP
GO TO 112
265
CONTINOE
C
C
IP ANY BASIS VABIABLE EXCEEDS ITS OPPEB BOUND, CCDPLEflEBT II
C
.AND PI70T OH COUBESPOHDIMG BOH
IP(M .LT. 2) GO TO <54
DO 275 1=2,a
IP (IBOW (I)) 275,275,266
266
J = IBOW (I)
IF (J-1000) 268,268,267
267
J = J-1000
268
IF(UPBH0(J) ATAB(I, 1))269,275,275
269
IF(ADELT*UPBND(J) tATAB(I,1)) 270,274,274
270
ATAB(I,1) = -ATAB(I,1)-UPE11D(J)
DO 271 K=2,t
271
ATAB(I,K) = - ATAB(I,K)
IPVB = I
IF(J-IROW(I)) 272,273,272
272
IBOW (I) = J
GO TO 130
273
IROH(I)
IBOHd) * 1000
GO TO 130
274
ATAB(I,1) = -UPBHD(J)
275
COHTIHUE

454
375

380

385

390

395

CONIIHaE

C
C
TKDE END OF LIHEAB PBOGBAHHIBG
C
SET SOLUTION VECTOK VALUES FOB BASIC VARIABLES
ir (H .LT. 2) GO TO 455
DO 280 1=2,H
IF(IBOU(I)) 280,280,277
277
IF(IROW(I)-1000) 279,279,278
278
J=1HOW(I)-1000
T(J) = UPDND(J) AIiB(I,l)
GO TO 280
279
J = IBOW(I)
T(J) = -ATAB(I,1)
280
CONTIHDB
455
CONTIHUE
C***
C
SET SOLUTION VECTOR VALUES FOR NON-BASIC VARIABLES IN COBPLEHENIBD
DO 285 1=2,N
IF(ICOL(I)) 285,285,282
282
IF (ICOL(I)-1000) 280,284,283
283
J = ICOL (I) -1000
T(J) =: UPBND(J)
GO TO 285
284
J = ICOL(I)
T(J) =0.0
285
CONTINUE
GO TO (286,437,548,615,670),IHDCIH

SODBUUTINE 8IHT
too

<)0S

aiO

415

420

425

430

435

440

445

450

455

C*
C
PIRST TIKE, WHITE COHTIHUOOS SOLUTIOM TiBLElO
C
IF REQUESTED
286
URITE(HO,I(0)
IF(IOUTJ) 287,291,287
287
WRITE (NO, V2)
CCCCC
WRITE(K0,26) (ICOL (J),J= 1, BJ
283
DO 290 1=1,H
CCCCC
KflITE(BO,25) (&TAB (1,0) ,J= 1 ,ll>
290
WRITE (NO,27) mow (I)
291
ZOPT = iBS(ATAB(l,t))
WHITE (NO, 35) ZOPT, ICUTB
WRITE(HO, 19)
WRITE(N0,1B) (I,I=1,HH1)
WRITE(HO, 10) (T{I) ,I=1,HH1)
C
C
COHPOTE ABSOLDTE TOLERAHCB
ATAB12 = ATAB(1, I)
ATADll = DADS(ATAB11 - ATAB(1,1))
IP(PCTTOI.) 29U,293,292
292
TLBHCE = PCTTOL * AIAB11 iTlB12
GO TO 294
293
TLRHCE = 1E35
294
CONTIHOB
C
C
DETEBJIINE WHETHER COBTIHUOOS SOLUTIOH IS BI5CED INTEGER SOLI
IF(H .LT. 2) GO TO 456
301
DO 310 1=2,B
IF(IROW(I)) 310,310,302
302
1F(IH0M(I) - 1000) 303,303,304
303
IF(IBOH(I) - HZHIVR) 305,305,310
304
IF{IR0W{I) - 1000 - HZR1VB) 305,305,310
305
AJ01 = ATAB(I,1)
AJ02 = ADELT
AJ03 = XI
IP (AHOO (-AJ01,Aa03)-iJ02) 310,310,306
306
IP(1.0 - AHOD (-001,AJ03> -iJ02) 310,310,295
310
CONTINOB
456
CONTINUE
IF (NZRIVR) 307,308,307
307
WRITEtH0,45)
GO TO 998
308
BRITE(KO,46)
GO TO 998
C
C
DETERHINE WHETHER PBOBLEH FITS IN BEHOBT, AND IF SO, VHETBEB
C
TO SAVE ALL INTERHEDIATE TABLEAOS OR ONLY SOME
295
IF (H-NZRIVR) 297,297,298
297
ISVLOC = (H*(H*1))/2
GO TO 299
298
ISVLOC = (NZRIVR {2H - NZRIVB 1)) / 2
299
IF(ISIZE-ISVLOC) 3001,3001,300
300
I1RUS
0
GO TO 315
3001
NONOSC < 0
DO 3006 J=2,ll
IF (ICOL (J)) 3006, 3006, 3002

SDBBOATIHE KIMT

460

3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007

965
3008
3009
3010
470

475

IF (1C0I,(J)-1000) 3003,3004,3004
IF(ICOL(J)-NzmVB) 3005,3005,3006
IF (ICOL (J) -1000-NZR1VB) 3005, 3005, 3006
NONUSC = HOHBSO 1
CONTINUE
IF (N-NZBIVB) 3007,3007,3008
******** *******
ISVLOC = ( IS-HOHBSC) (H-HOMBSC + 1) ) / 2
GO TO 3009
ISVLOC = HIIHZB1VB-0HBSC) (B-HOHBSC*H-HZB1?B*1)> / 2
IF(ISIZE-ISVLOC) 30 10, 30 10, 315
URITE(NO,55)
GO TO 998
COSTINaE

315
C***
C
BEGIN INTEGEB PHOGBAflHIllG
400
11 ' 1
402
AflAX = -II
rSVH{I1*l) = KSTH(II)

C***
C
C
480

485

CHOOSE VCXT INTEGEB VABIABIE TO BE CONSTBAINED

TBI MONBASIC VABIABLES FIB5T, CBOOSING ONE UITB LARGEST SHAD PBICB
DO 40B5 1=2,H
If (ICOL(I)) 4085,4085,405
405
ir(ICOL(l)-1000) 406,407,407
406
IF(ICOL(I)-NZR1VR) 408,408,4085
407
IF(ICOL(I) - 1000 - NZB1VU) 408,408,4085
408
IF(AAX-ATAB(1,1))4 082,4085,4085
4082
ISVI = I
AHAI = ATAB(1,I)
4085
CONTINDE
C

490

495

IF NOSE LEFT, TBI BASIC VABIABLES

IP(AI1AX XI) 4087,420,4087
C*
C
VARIABLE CHOSBS
4087
IVAR(II) => ICOL(ISyi)
BTHVL(II) = -1.0
ISVflCL{Il) = ISVI
ICOBR(II) o 0
VAL (n) =0.0

c
500

SOS

510

C
C

IF OBJECTIVE FOBCTIOH VALUE SHADOW PRICE EXCEED TOLERAHCB,

INDICATE UPWABD DIUECTION INfEASIBLE
IF(ATAB(1,1) ATAB(1,ISVI) - TLENCE) 410,409,409
409
TPVAL(II) = 1000.
IF(Il-l) 4101,4101,4095
4095
ISVN(ll) = 0
GO TO 4132
TPVAL(Il) = 1-0
410
C*
IF (11-1) 4100,4101,4100
C
SAVE ENTIRE TABLEAU OR ONLY CCLUHM CORBESFONDING TO CURBERr
C
HOHBASIC VARIABLE, DEPEMDIHG ON SIZE OF PBOB AMD 2ND DIB OF SAVTAB
4100
IF(II-IIROW) 4132,4101,4101
4101
I. = KSVH(II)
DO 412 J-l,a

245

SUQBOUTIHE Bill

515

520

1105
111
112
1132

525

530

535

SOO

55

550

555

1135

= H-1

GO TO 5000
C
CHOOSE NEXT INTEGEB VABIABLE TO BE CORSTBAIHED FBOH
C
A30NG BASIC VABIABLES IN CUBBENT lABLEAO
120
CONTINUE
IF(II-ItROU) 1201,600.1205
1201
I IBOB >11
1205
INDCT7 = 1
121
ifliX = -XI
IP(H -LT. 2) CO TO 157
DO 125 12=2,H
IF (IBO* (12)) 125, 125,122
122
IF{IROW(I2)-1000) 123,121,121
123
IF(IROV (I2)-NZB1VB) 1211,1211,125
121
IF{IRO tI2)-1000-RZR1VB) 1211,1211,125
1211
AAX2 = 1.0E35
iB&X3 -1.0E35
AJO - -ATAB(I2,1) ADBLt
ALU = AIHT(AJO>
AUP = ALW * 1.0
IF (H-1) 126,126,1210
1240
00 1216 13=2,M
IP (ATAB (12, 13)) 1241,1216,1212
1242
BTIO = AT4B(1,I3)/ATAB(I2,I3)
IF (RTI0-AHAX2) 4243,1216,1216
1243
AnAX2 = BTIO
GO TO 1246
4244
RTI02 = ATAB (1,13)/ATAB (12,13)
IF(RTI02-ABAX3) 4246,4246,1215
4215
AHAX3 = RTI02
4246
CONTINUE
IF ( A n A X 3 * 1E31) 1 3 0 , 4 3 0 , 4 2 4 7
4247

IF(AnAX2 - 1E34) 4248,1 2 9 ,129

1218

DIPF1 = D&BS(AMAX2 (ATAB(I2,1) * ALW))

DIFF2 = 0ADS(AnAX3 * (ATAB(I2, 1) * ADP))
DIFF = DABS(DIFF1 - DIFF2)
IP(DIFP-AaAX) 125,125,1219
AHAX = DIPF
SVALB
ALW
ISVI2 = 12
IF(DIFF1-DIPP2) 1251,1251,1252
ANDCn = 0.0
GO TO 425
ANDCT4 1.0
CONTINOE

560
1219
565
1251
570

ISVBOW (J.IIJ = lOOW(J)

DO mi K=1,ll
I = LK-1
IF (J-IJ 1105, m05, <111
SAVTAB (fl*1,I) = ICOt(K)
SAVTAD(J,I) = ATAB(J,K)
CONTINUE
ISVH(II) = H
KSVH(I1+ 1) = L*H
ICOL(ISVI) = ICOI.(B)
DO 1135 J=1,I!
ATAD(J,ISVI) =ATAB(J,H)

4252
425

SDBBOUTIHE HIUI
457

575

11255

COUTIUUB
ALV - SVALS
12 = ISVI2
VAL(II) = ALV*AItDCTI
BTHV1,(I1) = VAL{I1) -1.0
TPVAL(II) = 7AL{I1) 1.0

GO TO L32
C*
580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

C
IF NO. OF COLS = 1 ARD BIGHT HAND SIDE = 0, OOUT GO TO LP
^26
IF (DADS (ATAB(I2, 1) ALW) - ADEIT) 1)27, i27, 5100
427
BTHVL(II) = -1.0
TPVAL(II) = 1000.0
VAL(Il) = ALB
IAR(I1) = IU0U(I2)
IE0W(I2) = 0
GO TO 5000
C
C
COMSTRAIHING VARIABLE IH LOWEE DIBECTIOH INFEASIBLB
429
BTflVL(II) = -1.
IF(DABS (ATAB{12, 1) ALU) - ADELT) 4295,4295,4296
4295
AUDCT4 = 0.0
TAL(II) = ALH * AHDCT4
GO TO 4255
4296
TPVAL(ll) = ALB * 2.0
AUDCr4 = 1.0
GO TO 431
C***
C
COKSTRAIHIHG VABIBALE IH UPPER DIBECTIOH IHFEASIDLB
430
TPVAL(Il) = 1000,
BTnVL(II) = ALH - 1.0
AtlDCT4 = 0.0
431
VAL(II) = ALU iHDCT4
C*
C
SAVE ENTIRE TABLEAU
432
JSVB = H
L = KSVN(II)
438
DO 439 13=1,H
ISVHOV (13,11) = IB0(I3)
DO 439 14=1, B
16 = L X4 - 1
IF (13-1) 4385,4385,439
4385
SAVTAB (n +1,I6) = ICOL (14)
439
SAVTAB(I3,I6) = ATAB(I3,I4)
ISVMdD = H
KSVH(IUl) = L>B
ATAB(I2, 1) = ATAB(I2,1) VAL(II)
ISVHCL(Il) = 12
IVAR (II) = IR0U(I2)
ICORB(Il) = 1
IR0U(I2) = 0
IF (ABS (ATAB(I2, 1) ) - ADELT) 433, 433, 434
433
ATAB{I2,1) = 0.0
434
IHDCTH = 2
C***

625

C
C

BETURH TO CABBI OUT LP

IF(IOOTI) 240.254,240
IHFIHITE BETOBH

SUDROOTIUB ni'
135
'352
630

1(355

C
635

600

645

650

655

660

665

670

675

IF (IkHDCTU) l355,i352,3S5
DT(1VL(I1) = -1.0
GO TO 5120
TPV*L(n) = 1000.0
GO TO .5120

C
FINITE RETOBH
"<37
CO TO 5000
C
TEST FOH AMI IHTEGEB VABIABLES LEFT TO BE COHSTHilHBD
5000
IF(II-NZRIVH) 5050,550,550
C
INCBEHEUT POIKTEB ANC BETUBH TO COHSTBAIH NEXT INTEGEB VABIiBLB
5050
II = II 1
IF (lOUTl) 505 1,U02, 5051
5051
VBITE(NO,70J II
GO TO iS02
C
C
DECREHENT POINTER AND CONSTRAIN CDRRENT TABIABLE TO THE
C
CUBRENT VALOE OB - 1
5100
I I = 11-1
IF{I0UT1) 5110,5115,5110
5110
WRITE (NO, 75) I I
5115
IP(I1) 995,995,5120
5120
IF(IVAB (II)-1000)5151,5151,5152
5151
K = lyAB(n)
GO TO 5153
K = IVAR(II) -1000
5152
12 = ISBCL(I1)
5153
5155
IF(BTHVL(I1)) 516,517,517
5 lb
IF(rPVAL(11) -UPBND(K) ) 518,518,5100
IF (TPVAL (IIJ -UPBND (K) ) 510, 530, 525
517
C*
C
TOP END FEASIBLE
IHDCTS = 1
518
5181
IF(IC0RR(I1)) 5198,5182,5198
5182
IF(II-IIBOW) 5183,5198,5198
5183
IHDCT8 = 1
IF(Il-l) 5185,5198,5185
INDCTS =
5185
IS7I1 =11-1
XI = 1
GO TO 5198
DO 5191 13 = 1,ISri1
5190
I< = ISVBCL(I3)
XCOL(ia) = ICOL(H)
DO 5193 J=l,a
IF(VAL(I3) - 1.0) 5193,5191,5192
ATAB(J,1) = ATAB(J,1) * ATiBfJ,^)
5191
GO TO 5196
ATAB(J,1) <= ATAB (J,1)
5192
fAL(I3) * ATAB(J,I)
INDCTS = 2
5196
ATAB (J,It)
ATAB(J,N)
5193
N =

680

519a
5195
C*

H - 1

CONTINDE
I I = ISVI1 1
INDCTS = 1
GO TO 521

SUBBOOTIIE nIBI
685

690

695

700

705

C
RETRIEVE SAVED TABLEIO
5198
N = ISVN(ll)
L = KSVM(II)
DO 5199 13=1,H
IB0(13) = ISVBOW (13, II)
DO 5199 Ii=1,H
16 = L It - 1
IF(I3-1) 5197,5197,5199
5197
ICOL(I) = SAVTAB(n*l,16)
5199
ATAB(I3,I) = SAVTAB (I3,I6)
5205
GO TO (521,526,531,5190) ,IHDCIS
521
VAL{I1) = TPVAL(Il)
TPVAL(I1| = TPVALCII) 1.0
IF(ICORB (II)) 5ll1,S22,51
522
DO 523 I3=1,H
ATAB(I3,1) = ATAB{I3,1) (VAI.(11) * ATAD(I3,I2))
IP(ABS (ATAD(I3, 1) ) - ADELT) 5225,5225,523
5225
ATAB(I3,1) <= 0.0
523
ATAB (13,12) = ATAB(I3,H)
IC0L(I2) = ICOL(B)
H = M - 1

IF(ATAB(1,1) - TLBBCE) 5235,5100,5100

IF(II-IIBOW) 650,51(15,51115

710

715

720

725

730

735

7a0

5235
C*
C
BOTTOM EDO FEASIBLE
525
INDCT5 = 2
GO TO 5198
526
VAL(II) = BTHVL(II)
BTBVL(II) = BTflVI,{I1J - 1.0
GO TO 541

C
BOTH ENDS FEASIBLE
530
INDCT5 = 3
GO TO 5198
531
AnAX2 > 1.0E35
AHAX3 = -1.0E35
DO 536 13=2,H
1F(ATAB(I2,I3)) 531,536,532
532
BTIO
ATAB(1,I3) / ATAB(I2,I3)
IF(RT10 - AnAX2) 533,536,536 '
533
AHAX2 = BTIO
GO TO 536
531
BTI02 = AIAB(1,I3) / ATAB(I2,13)
1F(BTIQ2 - AMAX3) 536,536,535
535
AnAX3 = BTI02
536
COHTINOE
IF(AHAX2 - I.0E35) 538,537,537
C*
C
BOTTOM END INFEASIBLE
537
BTflVL(II) = -1.0
GO TO 521
538
IF(AMAX3 1.0E35) 539,539,SI0
C
C
TOP END INFEASIBLE
539
TPVAL(II) = 1000.
GO TO 526
50
DIFFl = DABS(AHAX2 (ATAB(I2,.1) fiTnVL(II)))

SOBBOOTIME NIBT

75

51)1
5412
5K15

750

755

760

765

c*

DIPP2 = DABS(A(IAX3 (ATAB(I2, 1) TPVAL(ll)))

IP(DIFF1-DIFF2) 526,526,521
ATAB(I2,1) = ATAB(I2, 1) VAL{I1)
IR0U{I2) = 0
IF(ABS(ATAB(I2,1)) - ADEtT) 5i 12,51(12,5415
ATA0(I2,1) => 0.0
INDCTH = 3
IF(IODTI) 240,2505,200

C
INFINITE BETOBH
542
GO TO (5'i,5<7,5il3) ,IMDCT5
513
IF(TPViL(II) - VAL(II) - 1.0) 51(5,541), 5H5
544
TPVAL(ri) = 1000.
GO TO 5120
545
IP(yAL(I1) - DTM7L(I1) - 1.0J 546,547,546
C
546
COMTIMOE
547
BTn7L(I1) = -1.0
GO TO 5120
C*
C
FINITE BETUB*
548
GO TO 5000
C
FEASIBLE INTEGER SOLUTION OBTAINED
550
TLRNCE = ATAB(1,1)
SOLMIN = 1.0

C*
C
770

552
553

775

554
555
557

780

560
565

785

600
605

C*
790

WBITE CURRENT BEST NIXED INTEGEB SOLOTIOI

IF(I0UT3) 552,553,552
Z0P7 = ABS (ATAB(1, 1))
WaiTE(HO,351 EOPT,ICNTB
DO 560 I=1,NZB1VB
IF(IVAB(I)) 554,560,554
IF(IVAR(I) - 1000.) 555,555,557
J = IVAB(I)
T(J) = VAL(I)
GO TO 560
J = IV&B(I) - 1000
T(J) = UPBND(J) - yiL(I)
COHTIHOE
VBITE(N0,19)
VBITE{HO, 18) (I,I=1,NH1)
WRITE(HO,10) (T(I) ,I=1,Hai)
GO TO 5115
GO TO (605,4205) ,IN0C17
INDCTB -= 4
IF(IOUTl) 240,254,240

C
INFINITE BETOBH
610
GO TO 5100

C
FINITE BETOBH
615
I1IDCT7 = 2
GO TO 402
795

C
IP USING SECOND SOLUTION METHOD, SAVE TABLEAU BODIFIED
C
FOR NOSBASIC VALUE OF HON BASIC VARIABLE lil TBSA1
650
DO 655 I:>1,H

SOBROOTINE HIHI

800

655
660
805

ITDROW(I) = IROV(Z)
DO 655 J=1,B
TBSAVfr .JJ = ATAB(I,J)
DO 660 J=1,N
ITDCOL(J) = ICOL(J)
JSVH = H
INDCTR = 5
IFIIOUTI) 2l0,25l,2l0

C*
810

C
INFINITE EETOBB
665
GO TO (5a,5120) ,ItlDCI8
C
FINITE HETUBH

C*
C
IP asiNG SECOND SOLUTION tlETHOD, BETBEIVE HODIFIEO TABLEAO FBOB
C
TDSAV, AS THIS CORBESPONOS TO SAVED COLUHNS FOB II LESS THAN I1B0R
670
B = JSVB
815
675
820

680

DO 675 1= 1,1!
IPOM (I) = ITBBOW(I)
DO 675 J=1,l
ATAB(I,J) = TfiSAT(I,J)
DO 680 j=i,a
ICOL(J) - ITDCOL(J)
GO TO 5000

C***

825

830

835

840

C
OOTPUT PINAL SOLUTIOB
IF(ITOL) 996,9976,996
995
996
IF(SGLI1IN - 1.0E35) 9976,997,997
ITOL = ITOL 1
997
TLBNCE = FLOAT(ITOL) PCTTOL ATAB11 1TAB12
H = ISVH(1)
DO 9972 1=1,H
IR0U(1) = ISVR0U(I,1)
DO 9972 J=1,H
9972
ATAB(I,J) = SAVTAB(I,J)
DO 9973 IC=I, I
ICOL(K) = SAVTAB (H1,K)
9973
GO TO 400
998
COHTINOE
9976
VBITE (NO,50)
1001
HRITB(HO,65) ICHTB
N.IBONS = NaBOMS - 1
999
IF(N{|RUHS) 68,1000,68
BESOLT = AT&B{1, 1)
1000

C
805

850

c
c
c

lUOBD
WRITE (NO,35) RESULT, ICBTB
BETUBN
END

APPENDIX D
PROGRZm LISTINGCOKE.TAB

251

252

PROGRAM c a K E (INPUTDUTPUT # T A p t 5 .lNPUTTAPE6.0UTPUT)

PROGRAM CDKF( IN PUT OUTPUT,T APEl TAPE'j-INPUT. TAPE b-OUr PUT )
C - THE rOLLO.(ING FPPTPAN PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO DETERMINE C
VALUES OF THE OUTPUT STATE VARIABLE VECTOR FROM THE COKE
C
nVFN II.f. VALUES OF COKE SULPHUR, COKE ASH, AND COKE
C
STABILITY) AS A FUNCTION OF THE INPUT VECTOR (COAL SULPHUR
C
CUAL ASH, AND COAL MOISTURE "AS RECEIVED), AND THE
C
DECISION VARIABLE VECTOR (PULVERIZATION LEVEL, COAL
C
MOISTURE AS CHARGED, AND COKE OVEN FLUE TEMPERATURE)
C

C - THE REFERENCES FROM WHICH RELATIONSHIPS ARE TAKEN, ARE

C
CITED liriERE USED
C - PRELIMINARY
DIMENSION OTABLE(350,ZO), ITAHLE(350,20)
NI 5
NO 6
C
C - READ IN FIXED CARBON (DRY BASIS) FOR SUBJECT AND BLEND
C
COALS - AS PEPCENTS
READ(NI,100) FCSC, FCBLC
FCSC FCSC / 100.
FCBLC - FCBLC / 100.
C
C
C - INITIALIZE OTABLE TO -(INFINITE
C
DO 50 I-T#350
DO 50 J -1,20
OTAP.LE(I,J) *20000.
50
CONTINUE
C
C
C - INPUT COST FIGURES IN ORDER TO CALCULATE STAGE RETURN
C
CSTOVN CHARGE MADE FOP ONE TON OF COAL TO USE THE
C
COKE OVEN FOR ONE HOUR MORE THAN 17.8
C
CSTGAS DOLLARS PER BTU FOR COKE OVEN GAS
C
CSTTAR . DOLLARS PER TON FOR COKE OVEN TAR
C
READ(NI,100) CSTOVN, CSTGAS, CSTTAR
C
C
C - INPUT VALUES FOP INPUT STATE VARIABLE VECTOR FOR THE BLEND
C
COAL.
C
C
READ (NI,100) PYRSBL, ORGSBL, H20PL, ASHBL
100
FORMAT (6F10.3)
PFAD (HI,1001 BLEND, COSTBL
BLEND BLEND / 100.
C
C - READ COEFFICIENTS OF 2ND ORDER POLYNOMIAL WHICH DEFINES
C DIVISION OF PYRITIC TO ORGANIC SULPHUR AS A FUNCTION OF TOTAL
C COAL SULPHUR.
C
PEADINIjIOO) COEFO, CHEFl, C0EF2

- PfAO SUBJFC1 COAL MOISTURE CDSTENT AS WT

P E A O (HlflOO) H 2 D S B
- P E A O 3 P A R A M E T E P S F O P 3 C O M P O N E N T S O F I N P U T S T A T E VfCTORi
3 COMPONENTS NF DECISION VECTOR, AND ' I COMPONENTS OF OUTPUT
STATE VECTOR.

PFAOCN I>bO) D O W N B .
KLAD(N I .bO) D O W N C .
PEAOtH I>bOt D O U N D T
RfAD(N ItbOl D O W N E ,
RFAD(N h b O l D O W N F F
RFADIN I>bOI D O W N G ,
PFAD(N I>bOI D O U N H ,
READCN IfbO) D O W N ! ,
REAO(N ItbOl D O U N J ,
READ(N If&O) D O W N K ,
FORMAT(F10.3 n o .
NOB N Q C
LENGTH
NOE N O F
IWIDTH

'60

NOB# DELB
NOC, DEIC
HOD, DELO
NOE, DELE
NOF, DELF
NOG, DFLG
NOH, DELH
NOI, DELI
NOJ# DELJ
NOK, DELK
F10.3)
NOD
NOG

- SET THE 3 INPUT VARIABLES

TOTSSB
DO BSD
TOTSSB
PCPYRS
PYRSS3
ORGSSB

10
t

DOWNB - DELB
IXCOLS 1,N0B
TOTSSB DELB
COFFO CDEFl+TOTSSB CDEFiT0T5SB*2
(PCPYRS/IOO.) TOTSSB
(1.0 - (PCPYRS/100.)) TOTSSB
ASHSB DOWNC - DELC
DO 850 IXCASH 1,N0C
ASHSB ASHSB OELC
CLWTSB DOWND - OELD
DO B50 ICOLWT - 1,N0D
CLWTSB CLWTSB * DELD
COALWT CLWTSB / (1.0 - BLEND)
WRITE(N0,10) TOTSSB, ASHSB, CLWTSB
FORMAT(1X"SUBOECT SULPHUR "FB.3,2x,"SUBJECT ASH
FB.3,2X, "SUBJECT COAL WT "(FB.S)

- DETERMINE COMPOSITION OF THE CHARGED BLEND BY SIMPLE

WEIGHTED AVERAGES
PYRS ({l.-BLEND)PYRSSB)(BLFNDPYPSBL)
ORGS ((l.-OLEND)*ORG5SB) + (BLEND'ORGSBL)
TOTALS PYRS ORGS
H2aiN ((1.-BLEND)*H20SB) * (BLEN0*H3QBL)
ASH ({l.-BLEN01*A5HSBl (BLEND'ASHBLl

BIG

DO-LOOPS FOLLOW, TO EVALUATE THE

OUTPUT VARUBlfS AT THE VARIOUS X/U VAKIABIE POINTS

C
C
C

331
3333
333

DVI-PUIV OF COAL AT -1/8" SIZE

0V2-C0LHZ0 - ACTUAL MOISTURE OF COAL AS CHAPGEDDV3-FLUTI1P - ACTUAL FLUE TFMPEPATURE OF COKE OVEN IN DECREES
FLUTMP DOWNE - DELE
00 i 5 0 JDFT ItNOE
FlUTMP FLUTHP DELE
GO TO 333
DOWNF - H2DIN
WRITEINO,33331 DOHNF
FORMAT ( I X F /," DOWNF HAS BEEN CHANGED TO
FID.
C0LH20 OOWNF - DELF
IFIH20IN .GT. DOWNF) GO TO 331
DO eSO JDCHZO 1>N0F
C0LH2D C0LH2O DELF
PULV DOWNS - DELG
DO 850 JDPULV I,NOG
PULV " PULV DELG
CARBONIZATION TEMPt A C C O P D I N G T O S O P E H S O N ( R E F.1061, C A N BE
RELATED TO TLUTEM? SYi
CAPaTP-FLUTMP-325.0
PER WENGER (REF107I THE TEST OVEN TEMP I S RELATED TO ACTUAL
COKE nvEN V I A I
TSTTMP.FLUTfiP-lOO.O
FKOM WENGEP AND NEUBAUM> I R F F <i91 r BULK DENSITY CAN PE
ESTIMATED

NOWI

nLKDNS-6 3.2')l(0. 315522 C01 H20)-(0.227937*PULV)

1
-t').97522F-3*(PULV*CDLH20) )*(0.53057(PULV/C0LH2D))
PERCENT PLUS 2" COKE - FIG b REFiiS
PLUS2-100.0-1-135.917 (0.07B33 TSTTMP))
FROM VARIiTUS MASS BALANCES ON COKE OVENS, THE FOLLOWING
REPPESEHT REASONABLE ESTIMATES - NOTE THAT THE RELATIVE
AMOUNTS OF TAP AND GAS CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO CARBONIZATION
TEMP (SEE USBM PI51101 THE BASIS FOR MASS BALANCE CALCS
IS The COAL WT CHARGED. ACCORDING TO SORFNSONIINLAND)
THE COKF. YIELD ASH(BRY) FIXED CARBON (DRY
THE GAS, TAR, AND OIL VOLATILE MATTER (DRY)
WHILE LIOUHR REPRESENTS THE MOISTURE CONTENT.
UNDER THE BASE CASE, THE VOLATILE MATTER IS ALLOTTED AS
22.6 TAR - 73.3 GAS - <..1 O U
BASISW 2000. * COALWT
BASISO BASISW (( 100. - H2niN) / 100.)
FIKCRB " (FCSC (1.0 - BLENO)) ( fCBLC BLEHO)
WTCOKE (FIXCRB ( ASH / 100.)) BASISD
COKWT WTCOKE / 2000.
PCTAR 1 . 0 - 1[0.00095) (CAR3TP - 1800.)
VOLHAT l.O - FlXCPb - (ASH/IOO.)
WTTAP 0.2261 * PCTAP BASISD VOLHAT
WTGAS (0.733 (0.2261 (1.O-PCTAP)))0ASISDVOLMAT
WTOIL 0.0^09 * BASISO * VDLMAT
W T H O (H2aiN / 100.1 QASISW

NOTE I

WTCnKE W T I A R T W T G 4 S * W T O I L W T L I O B A S I S WET

C O N V E R T W E I G H T S T O F T 3 OF G A S A N D G A L L O N S OF T A R - S E E
N S C T P 9 1 , A N D P I T'LOO F O R D E N S I T Y A N D A S S U M E D O V E N G A S
COHPOSIIION
MW O F T H E G A S 9 . 5 3 .
G A L T AR . W T T A B / ( 1 . 2 * 6 2 . ' 0 . 1 3 3 7 1
SCFGASIWTG4S3 5 9 . 0 ) / 9 . 5 3
BTUGA5-SCFGAS5^0.0
C A L C U L A T E C O K I N G R A T E I N I N C H E S P E R HOUR AS A F U N C T I O N
OF PULV.COLHZO AND TSTTMP
A T 2 2 5 0 . 0 . 7 2 ' I 5 1 5 ( . 0 13 5 ' I 5 5 C 0 L H 2 0 ) ( . 0 0 5 6 3 1 ' . 2 P U L V )

-12.3520'iE-5(PIILVC0LH2CIJ )-t't.33 2'.5E-3 IPULV/

C0LH20))
DELCRT- -3.'.288'I ( 1 . 52393E-3*TSTTUP>
C0KINGAT225O DELCRT
T I 1 E T O C O K E I S S I M P L Y T H E W I D T H O F THE O V E N D I V I D E D B Y
C O K I N G R A T E AND T H E S T A G E R E T U R N I S K A D E U P I N P A R T B Y
THE RETURN ASSOCIATED WITH THE COKING TIME
UIDTM 'ia.O
TIME-WIOTH/COKING
TIMRET (TIME - 1 7 , 8 ) (CSTOVN (BASISW / 7 0 0 0 . ) )
******

NEXT A SULPHUR BALANCE I S PERFOPMED-SI * DIFFERENT REFERENCES

WEPE U S E D T O M A K E THE B A L A N C E - ( S E E D I S S E R T A T I O N FOR
T H E R E F E R E N C E S ) - WHERE MORE T H A N ONE R E L A T I O N S H I P I S
A P P L I C A B L F . AN AVERAGE OF THE PREDICTED VALUES I S TAKEN,
AND THE BALANCE I S CLOSED AT THE BOTTOC
SULPHR.(TOTALS/IOO.O) EASISD
R E F S - C O M P O S I T E - PZPF. C O A L C O K E f .COAL C H E M S . P ^ ^ B A P O N O V
ON P^FIFC C H E M O F C O A L U T I L , P 6 3 V A U G H N A N D R U S S E L L # P 9 ^ 7 C H E H
OF C O A L U T I L .

ST0C0K0.626SULPHP
COKESl-(STOC0K100.0)/WTCnKE
ST0GAS-0.30 * S U L P H R
CASSl1SI0GAS100.0)/WTGAS
ST0T A R .0.0<I 9S U L P H B
TARS"(STOTAR 100.0 ) / W T . T A R
STQLI0.0.025*SULPHP
SLlQB ( S i a L I Q *100.Q) t WTLIQ
REF2S - FIG V - B P V50 BATTFLLE
STOC O K . l.*5*10.0TOTALS
CDKE52-I5TDC0K*100.0)/1<.17.6
RFF3S - FIG V-9 P V50 BATTELLE
ST0GAS"7.5T0TALS
GASS2-(ST0GAS100.0)/333.2
REFitS - P'l'i^ CHFM OF COAL UTIL
COKE S3 - IO.fc2PYRS)*tO.<.5ORGS)
REF5S - PT,',', CHEM OF COAL U T I L
C0KES<I'O.08<.I0.759*T0TALS)
REF65 - AVERAGE OF FIG V - 7 PV50 BATTELLE E P63 VAUGHN

C0KES5-0.6<.TDTALS
TOTAL BALANCE CLOSURE
COKES-(COKES1C0KES2+C0KES3<C0KESSC0KES5)/5.0
GASS-(GASS1+GASS2)/2.0

256

jTncnK- (CQurs'wTCOKE)/ loo.o

SI llGi5-ir.fLS5*WTG*S)/100.0
TOTSUl SI0CrK*STD'5AS*ST0IARtSTnLIC
PCDIFS'SULPHK/TOTSUL

5incnK-si0C0KPCDiFs

STnGAS-ST00A5*PCDIFS
ST ' l T A R .STnTtB*PCDIFS
STOLIO.STOLIO'PCDIFS
COKES-(STOCDK*100.01/WTCDKE
GASS-(5NCS100.0>/WIGAS

TARS"(5TOTAB100.0I/WTTAR
SLICR-(STCLI0*100.0) / UTLIO
C

C - BY SIMPLE MASS BALANCE* KNOWING THAT NDNE OF THE ASH IS

C
VOLATILIZED, CALCULATE ASH PERCENT IN COKE
CnKASH-IASHPASIS01/WTC0KE
C
C - ESTIMATE STABILITY BY USING HENGER AND HEOBAUM
C
I F CERTAIN VARIABLES AP.F NUTSIOE RANGE
C
THIS COMBINATION I S INSCLUABLE I N WHICH CASE RETURN-*M
C - S T D L C A L C U L A T I C I H I S F R T M F I G . " . O F WENGER AND K E U B A U M
C

IFIPULV .GT. 100. .OR. PULV .LT. 40.1 CO TO AOO

STBL
- (0.13b55'iCQLH20)
I (0.2363'.3IPULV/C0LH?0)) tO.1<>8121PULVI
C
GO TO 500
C
C - FOR T H O S E C A S E S W H E N V A R I A B L E S A R E O U T S I D E A P P R O P R I A T E
C
LIMITSI
'OO
STBL 0 . 0

TOIRET " -100000.

GO TO 700
C
C

C - CALCULATE UflOERFIRlNG GAS REQUIREMENT AND CALCULATE THE

C
RETURN OERIVEO FROM THE EXCESS COKE OVEN GAS IBASED ON
C
GROSICK ET AL) - CSTGAS IS i /BTU
500
XCSAIR 35.0
UNDRFS lOBB. 1 76.t COK ING-1.0) 0.5 <>(C AR BTP-1 B50.
1 Z.0I*CSAIR-?5.) 16.*(COLH20-6.0)
TDTFIR BASISW UNDRFR
XSBTU BTUGAS - TOTFIR
GASRET CSTGAS XSBTU

C
C

C - CALCULATE RETURN FROM THE TAP GENERATED - CSTTAR I S I N UNITS

C
O F T / T O N O F TAR - T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N T H E T A R S U L P H U R
C
A N D T H E P R I C E A S A C O M M O D I T Y WAS E S T A B L I S H E D F R O M T H E
C
RELATIVE RATIO BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW SULPHUR TAR PKICES
C
AS G I V E N I N V A U G H N P P . 4 0 A N D 6 3 - C S T T A R I S T H E A S S U M E D
C
PRICE AT 1 S AND TAR RETURN I S TAKEN RELATIVE TO THAT
C

C
C

TPi'RIC-(J.0((TARS-1.0(-.Z'.2',)l)CSTTAR
TARRFT ITBPRIC WTTARI / 2000.
**

C - C4LCULATF THE AMOUNT OF WATER REQD TO CHANGE COAL FROM

C
H.'OIN AS-RECEIVED TO CDIH?0 AS-CHARGFD. AT 10 CENTS / THOUSAND
C
GAL HZn. 7.<181 0&L/FT3. 62.32 IBM HATEP/FTJ. THEM COST FOR
C
ADDITIONAL WATER ISi
IFtHZniH .GT. COLHPO) GO TO "lOO
DLTH20 C O L H Z n - H2DIN
H?0RET (DLTH20/100.) BASISW .00010 V.fiBl / 62.32
C

C
C - CALCULATE THE COST OF THE BLENDED COAL THAT WAS AODtO. I AT
C
C05TBL l/TPH AND WITH THE INPUT CPMPOSITION) - NOTE**
C
FOR FINAL DP ANALYSIS# MUST *ONLY** COMPARE DIFFERENT
C
RUNS WHERE THE
OF BLEND COAL IS THE SAME
C
CIWTBL COALWT - CLWTSB
BLRET CLWTBL COSTBL
C
C - NOW CALCULATE THE TOTAL RETURN FOR THE BASIS AMOUNT.
TOTRET - TIMRET GASRET TARRET - H20RET - BLRET
C
C - DEFINE IXNDX (INDEX OF ROW CORRESPONDING TO THREE INPUT
C VARIABLES TOTALS* COLASH, COALWT.
C
lERR 0
CALL DEFINEINOB# NOCf N0D> Q, IXC01S> IXCASH, ICOLWTt 0>
C
IXHDX. lERR)
IFdERR .EO. 1) GO TO 700
C
C - DEFINE JDNDX (INDEX OF COLUMN)
C
lERR 0
CALL OLFINE(NOEf NOF> NOG, 0, JDFT> JDCH20> JDPULV> 0,
t
JDNDX> lERR)
IFdERR .EO. II GO TO 700
C - NOW FOR THE OUTPUT VARIABLES, FIND THE INDICES CORRESPONDC ING TO THE COKES* COKASH, STBL, AND COI<WT< AND THE OVERALL
C
OUTPUT VARIABLE INDEX.

CALL FINDiCOKES, DOWNH, NOH, DELH, KYCOKS, lERR)

IFdERR .EO. II GO TO 700
CALL FINDICOKASH, DOWNI* NOI, DELI> KYCKASt lERRl
IFdERR .EO. 1 ) GO TO 700
CALL F1N0(STBL, DOWNJ# NOJ, DELJ, KYSTB, lERRI
IFdERR .EO. 11 GO TO 700
CALL FIND(CriKWT, DOwNK, NOK, DELK, KYCOKW, lERRI
IFdERP .EO. II GO TO 700
CALL DFFINEINOH, NOI# NOJ# NOK, KYCOKS, KYCKAS# KYSTB#
KYCOKW# KYNDX, lERPI
tF(lERR .FO. II GO TO 700

- FINALLY FILL IN THE TABLES AT THE PROPER LOCATIONS (HAKE

RETURN NEGATIVE SINCE VALUE IS INCOME NOT A COSTI.
OTABLEdXNDX# JONDXI - TOTRET
ITABLEdXNDX, JDNDXI KYNDX

258

c
kPIT6(M01000) IXNDX* JDN3X# KYNOX# TOTRET
FORMAT(/1X"IXM0*
J0H0X-'#I55X# " KYNDX
"TOTKET -'^FlC.a)

1000

C
C
C - OUTPUT FINAL STATE VARlABLESi
700
CONTINUE
WRITE(N0,800) PYRSf ORGS^ H2niN ASH
BOO
FCRHAT(1X"BLENDE0 CQAL PrPSrnRGS#H2D AND ASK**/

C
0Ot>
810
1

/f^PlO.3)

URlTE(Nn *a03) BLEND

F0RMAT(1X"WITH BLEND AT",Fa.3)
WRITEIMO^eiO) PULVt CCLH2Qf FLUTHP
FORMAT(lX#"DECISiaN VAPIABLESi PULV 'FB.3#
"C0LH20 VF0.3 "FtUTMP ">F8.3)
WRITE(N0,815) COKES# COKASH, STBL# WTCOKE
FORttATdX# "OUTPUT COKES# COKASH# STBL# WTCOKE I*5F1D.3)
yRITErN0820 TOTRET# PLUS2
F0RMAT(1X#"T0TAL RETtlPN AND PLUS 2* "#?F10.3//)

fil5
C
820
C
Bt>0
CONTINUE
C
C - FINALLY# OUTPUT THE TABLES
C
DO B75 I1#LENGTH
C
WPITE(N0#B7&) (OTABLEfWJ)# J*1#IUI0TH)
876
F0RHAT(10CF8,3 # 2 X n
875
CONTINUE
C
C
DO BR5 I-WLENGTH
C
UfflTEtHOrBeb) tlTABLEil#J)# J1#1W1DTH)
686
FORflATdOIlO)
885
CONTINUE

896
H95
C
899
698
900

DO 895 I-1#LENGTH
WPITE(1#896) (0TABLE(1#J) #J-I#lWI0Th)
F0RHAT(10F10.3)
CONTINUE
DO 898 1-1#LENGTH
WR1TEU>B99) UTABLE(1#J) /J-1#IWXDTH)
FOPHATdOIlO)
CONTINUE
STOP
END

APPENDIX E
PROGRAM LISTINGBLAST.TAB

259

ppor.PiM

B L A S T (INPUT#OUTPUT#rAPE5lNPUT T 4 PE6.OUT PUT I

PROGRAM BLAST I IHPUT#DUTPUT#TAPE 1 # TAPF 5 INPUT# T A PE 6 - 0 UTPUT)
- TH C FUIL0WIN3 PROGRAM IS MADE UP OF ONf MAIN PPUGRAM

AND SEVfRAL SUBROUTINES. IN THE MAIN PR0GR4M# ALL I/O

TAKES PLACE AND CALCULATIONS ARE IN AMERICAN ENGINEERING
UNITS WHILE IN THE HEAT BALANCF SUBROUTINE. ALL
COMPUTATIONS APE ACCOMPLISHED IN METRIC UNITS {I.E.
GRAMS AND CALORIES# ETCI.

LOGICAL FLAG
DIMENSION PAR(25I# PF(2'I)
DIMENSION BRDNSZ(7I
DIMENSION OTABLEI350#20)# ITABLE1350#20)
DIMENSION F*P4R(20)
C
C - E N T E R F I R S T AND S E C O N D O R D E R I N T E R A C T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S
C FOR USE LATER I N CALCULATING PARTITION RATIO.
C
DATA ESONS# ECONS# ESIONS# EHNONS# EFHONS
C
/-0.02B# o.ll'i, 0.063# -0.026# *0.029/
DATA RCDNS# RSIONS/ <0.0058# ^ 0 . 0 0 1 7 /
NI 5
NO 6

- FnR I/O THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS MUST BE IN A DATA FILE

LINE I I FDR SATURATED CARBON CONCENTRATION I N HM
WHICH I S READ ACCORDING TO AN
5F15.3 FORMAT.

THE PARAMETERS IN ORDER AREi

A L P H A - B E T A - GAMMA - D E L T A - E P S U O N

LINE 21 FOR THE IRON-BEARING BURDEN

BRDNWT (LB/HTHMl - FE203 AS WT
- FESO") - FEO - BRH20

OF TOTAL METALLIC BURDEN

LINE 31 ALSO FOR THE FE-BURDEN

BRSID2 - BRAL20 - BRCAO - BRHGO - BRSULP
LINE <>1 FOR THE UNCALCINED STONE BURDEN
STSIU2 - STAL2Q - STCACO - STMGCO - STSULP
LINE b\ PROPERTIES OF THE COKF (NOT INCLUDING THE
VARIABLES THAT ARE INPUT STATE VARIABLES)
CKSI02 - CKAL20 - CKCAO - CKMGO - CKOXID
WHEPF CKOXIO I S THE PERCENT OF THE ASH
T H A T I S M A D E U P O F T H E OTHER O X I D E S T H A N
SILICA - MAGNESIA - LIME - ALUMINA)

IIM (Ii Fni< THt Ftutnusi

Trit

FROM
ULAST FURNACE
iJlFDdl/HTimi - FDSinZ- FDAL20 - FDCAQ - FDMGO

LlNt 7! FQ^ THE BLAST

VOPL (VOL 02 IN DLAST) - VN2DL - GRDLST (GRAINS OF
iriSIURE IN THE BLAST PER SCF BLAST) - BUNKER (LB/NTHH
OF BUNKER C FUEL OIL INJECTEDI - BUNKRS ( S IN OIL)
LINE t!i FOP THE OPERATING CONDITIONS
FREE (LB/NTHM OF FREE METALLIC CHARGE) - PRESUR (TOP
PRESSURE OF THE BLAST fUFtUCE IH PSIG) - SCBLGS (KETAL
LOSS OF THE BLAST FURNACE IN LB/NTHK.) - CPSL (HFAT
CAPACITY OF THE SLAG) - CPHH LINE 91 OTHER FURNACE CONSTANTS
CONST ( CARBON CONSTANT) - WRKVDL (FT3) - VCOTG
(VOL
CO EXITING THF HIGH TEMP 70NE) - VC02TG
- OLOSS (HEAT LOSS OF THF HIGH ItMP ZONE OF THE FURNACE
IN CALORIES)
LINE 101 TOLERANCES EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE
VALUE BEING COMPARED
SLGTOL - SILTOL - COKTOL
LINES 11 - 12
OF TOTAL METALLIC BURDEN CHARGED THAT IS IN EACH
RANGE FOR FLINT CALCULATION - (1) -20Hi (2) EOM
-l/8 (3) *1/6 -3/6. Ci) S/B -I. (5) tl -2
(6) *Z
(7) +<.
BRDNSZ(I) 1.1.7

SlZr

- FOR ALL CASES BELOW AMOUNTS ARE LBS./NTHH AND COSTS

ARE DOLLARS PER TON OF MATERIAL - UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE LINE 131 CSTBRD (AGGREGATE COST /TOM FOR METALLIC BRON
THAT IS C O N S I O E R E n I N STUDYl - CSTSTN (COST F O R AGGREGATE
STONE CHARGE) - CSTBNK (/LB OS INJECTED OIL) - CSTBFG
(COST/BTU FOR THE BLAST FURNACE GAS THAT IS GENERATED APPROXIMATELY 93 BTU PER SCF) - CSTSTG (COST/BTU FOB THE
HIGHER CALORIFIC GAS USED TO FIRE THE BLAST PREHEATING
STOVES
LINES l*. THRU I B HAVE 2 SETS OF DATA ON EACH LINE
DOWN(I),
(I)> DEL(I) WHERE I CAN TAKE VALUES
H COKES. I COKASH. J STBL. K COKEWT. L
H SCFNTM. N BLTMPK. 0 HMWT, P HMS. 0
AND R . HMTMPF

aN

FOR
FROM H TO R.
BRATIO
HMSI

to IF OOWNH 0.6. NOH - 3. AND DELH 0.1 THEN THE POSSIBLE

DISCRETE VALUES THAT COKES CAN TAKE ARE 0.6, 0.7 AND 0.8.
READ (NI.IOO) ALP. BET. GMA. DEL. EPS

262

100

102

FDRHATI5F15.3)
PfA0(NI.100l BRDNWT. F(Z03> FF3D<>< F10> BKHZO
KFAD(NIiiOOI fiRSID2> RPAI.20, BRCAO> eRHGO> BRSULP
PEADIHItlOO) STSI02> STAL20> STCACOt STHSCOt STSULP
PEA0(N1,100I CKSin?> CKAL2Q> CKCAOi CKHGD> CKOXIO
ReAD(tlI> 100) WTFD. F0SI02> FDAL20> FDCAOt FDHGO
RrAD(NI>100) VaBL> VN2BLf GRBLST* BUNKFR> BUNKRS
PfAOINI.lOO) FREE. PRE5UR. SCRLQSf CPSL. CPHH
PEADlriI> 100) CONSTi WPKVOLt VCDTG, VC02TGf OLHSS
READIHI.lOO) SLGTOL. SILTOL. CKTQL
PEADtMItlOO) (BRUMSZd). I*l7)
REtD(NIilOO) CSTBRO. CSTSKU CSTBNK, CSTBFG> CSTST6
PEAD(NI,102) TFC
F n H M A T (riO.'i)

101

BfAO(HWlOl) DUMSH, IIOH, OELH DOVJIU, NOl,

RFAD(H1,101) OnWNJ, Naj> DELJ> OOWKK, NOK>
PFAn(NI>101) DnuNL> NOL, OELL. POWNH> NQH,
PEAOINI.IOl) OOWNN> NQN, DELN. OaWNOt NOQi
PFAOlNl . l O n DnWHP, NOP, DELP DDWNO NOQ,
REAO(NI/101) OaUNRr NOR. OELR
FnRHAT(F10.3, I10 2F10.3# 110. F10.31
LEMGTH NDH NOI NDJ NQK
I WIDTH NDL NQM HON

DELI
DELK
DELM
OELO
DELO

C
CX
105

WRITECNQ,10b)
FORHATdHl)
(B) - INITIALIZE RETURN TABLE INFINITE

107
C

DD 107 1 *1.350
DO 107 J-1.20
OTABLEd.J) * 20000.
CONTINUE

C
C
C

IE) - SET VALUES FOR INPUT STATE VARIABLE VECTOR

COKES OQWNH - DELH
DO 2000 IXS l.NOH
COKES COKES DELH
COKASH DDWHl - DELI
DO 2000 IXASH l.NOI
COKASH COKASH DELI
STBL DOUNJ - DELJ
00 2000 IXSTB l.NOJ
STBL STBL DELJ
IF) - SET VALUES FOR DECISION VARIABLE VECTOR
BPATIO DOWNL - DFLL
DO 2000 JOBR l.NOL
BRATin RRATIO DELL
SCFNTH DOWMM - DEL-M
DO 2000 JDSCF l.NOH
SCFNTM SCFNTH DELM

263

BLTMPK DOWNN - DLN

OQ 2 0 0 0 JOBT IFNUN
BLTMPK BLTMPK 4 OELN
C
BLTHPF (1.8RLTKPKJ -^59,76

cccccccrrcccccccccccrccc

H P J T E ( N D , 1 0 3 ) C 0 K E S CnKASH S T B L >BRATI[ J # S C F N T M # B L T M P K , B L T M P F
FHRMATdX#" COKESF COKASH# STBL# SCFNTM# BLTK# BLTFf
7F12.3)

C
C - SET
C

VARIOUS INITIAL VALUES

ESTSL - 0 . 9
ESTS
- 0.0<I
HMFIN
0.73
HMPHOS 0 . 0 7 8
DAYS 1000.

C
C - S F T I N I T I A L L O G I C F L A G TFL F A L S E - WHEN I T I S T U R N E D T R U E
C
THEM CQKER&TE HAS CONVERGED AND CALCULATE S CHARGED
C
ONE LAST TIME SEE LINES 1 6 9 AND 1 7 2
C
FLAG - .FALSE*
C
C - CAN ESTIMATE PROUCTION FOR THE 26 1 / 2 FOOT FURNACES
C
AT INLAND (AS THE BASE CASE) BY KNOWING THE STABILITY,
C
CAN GET CLOSER LATER AFTER KNOWING OTHER VARIABLES
C
BY USING THE OTHER 0 C S EOTN.
PRDXNL - ^ 0 . 1 3 1 A7.29 STBL
PPOOXN PROXNL
C
C
C
C
FIND DECIMAL EFFECTIVE CARBON
C
C
C ' FOLLOWING THE GENERAL PROCEDURE ON P 3<I OF F L I N T N 9 7 1 )
C
TUT WITH UPDATED COEFFICIENTS (SEE BELOW)
C
ULTCRB THE ULTIMATE CARBON I N COKE 100 C
TOTAL ASH - SULPHUR - MOISTURE - VOLATILES ETC
C
FOR THE LATTER TWO OUANTITYS SIMPLY USE 5
C
SLGASM SLAG FROM ASH I N COKE LESS FE^PMN OXIDES
C
SLCUNC SLAG FROM UNCALCINED STONE TO NEUTRALIZE
C
THE ACIO OXIDES I N THE COKE ASH
ULTCPB 100. - COKASH- COKES - 5 . 0
SLGASH COKASH - (CFLKASH CKOXID/IOO.)
C
* ****
PEOBAS (COKASH (CKSI02 + CKAL20)) BRATIO
AVAILB (COKASH I CKCAO CKMGO))
SLCUNC - (RFOBAS - AVAUB) / 1 0 0 .
C
FOR BLAST HUMIDITY PFR V 3 ^ FLINTF 1 LB OF COKE

IHTM/IIC CARHON REUS 57 SCI- AlC AT lUYLKiS (hUH AHU I'l.TI

ALSO 1 GRAIN DF H2D PEP CF AIR 57 1 57 GRAINS PER
LB CriKE ULTIHATE CARBON. THtREFDB 57 I 1000 0.0081
IH H2.1 PtR LB ULTIHATE CARBON SINCE ILB 7000 GRAINS
HUMID . GRBLST O.OOal ULTCKB
SUBTRACTING THE PRODUCTS OF THE ABOVE PARAMETERS AND
IHEIR CntFFICIEMTS FFO(i ULTIMATE CARBON YIELDS THE
NET EFFECTIVE CARBON IN COKE AND FINALLY DEC

115

A . ULTCRB
B SLOASH O.bO
C " SLGUNC 0.<i5
0 COKES 3.0
E HUMID O.'iO
EFFNET A - l R t C t D + E )
DEC EFFNET / 100.
WPlTEtN0.115> DEC
FDRMATd*."DECIMAL EFFECTIVE CARBON ",F7.'i)
DEC DETERMINED

FIND COKE BATE

- AGAIN THE GENERAL PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN FLINT (I^bl)
ON P.36 15 FOLLOWED WITH THE COEFFICEIHTS AGAIN BEING
THE UPDATED ONES FROM THE 1973 USS CARBON RATE FORKULA
KNOWING THE VALUE OF DECISION VARIABLE - BRATIO. THE
APPPOXIMATE STONE CHARGE CAN BE CALCULATED.
FOU THE FIRST RUN THRU THE DEC PROCEDURE IN FLINT IS USED.
THE CONTRIBUTION TO SLAG FROM THE COKE IS CONSIDERED
IN CALCULATING THE DEC ABOVE# SO AN INITIAL GUESS OF COKE
PATE IS NOT NEEDED. BY ESTIMATING (II THE HMS AND (2)
THE HI1SI, THEN PROCEED TO DETERMINE FIRST FSTIMATE DF THE
COKERATE. THE HMS AND HMSI WILL BE CHECKED LATER.
NOTEI AN INITIAL ESTIMATE OF STONE CHARGE IS MADE HERE.
AGAIN NOT CONSIDERING THE COKE. THIS IS UPDATED LATER.
- CALCULATE STONE CHARGE FOR B-RATIO
ADD UP VARIOUS OXIDES FROM BURDEN AND STONE (NOT FROM
COKE SINCE COKE TAKEN CARE OF IN DEC)

CONST! 56.06 / 100.0<)

C0NST2 "lo.aos / e'l.ais

XI BRDNWT*(BBCAOtBPMGO- BRATIQ(SRS102^BRAL20)I
X2 0.0
X3 WTFD (FDCAO*FDGO - BRATIO (FOSl O? + F0AL2OM

%, ' RRATIO

* 2000.

X *1 t X2 *3

ESTSI (60.086/28.066)
X"!

C
T-t(BKAriD(STSIQ24STAl20))-(IC0NST1STC4CD)(C0NST2STMGCDI))
WISinN . X / Y
c
C
C
C

WT UNCALCINEO STDNE (NEGLECTING AMOUNT FDR CDKEI IS THE AMOUNT

FROM STONE - WTSTOH IS IN LB/NTHM
UNCtlC WTSTON CONSTl STCACO WTSTON CONST? STHGCO
UKCALC UNCALC I 100.

C
C
C
C

TOTAL SLAG ALL OTHER IS THE WEIGHT OF OXIDES IN BURDEN PLUS

IHE WT OF OTHER OXIDES IN STONE
SLGOTH BRDNWTtlBRCAO^BRIGQ+BRSID2+ERAL20I
SLGOTH SLGOTH + WTSTON (STSI02 + STAL2D)
SLGOTH SLGOTH / 1 0 0 .

C
C - CALCUIATE THE WEIGHT OF SULPHUR IN LB. CHARGED IN THE FLUX
C
AND THE FE-BURDEN
CHGSUL (BRnNWT*ilRSULP)(WTSTrNSTSULP)KBUNKERBUNKRS)
CHGSUL - CHGSUL / 1 0 0 .
C
C - SET VALUES TO PARAMETERS AND SFND TO FLINT
C
P F d l UNCALC
P F ( 2 ) SLGOTH
DO 600 I I W
PF(It21 . B R D N S m i BRDNWT / 100.
COHT INUE
PFdOl
CHGSUL
PFdl)
FREE
P F (12)
STBL
PFd3)
ESTSI
PFdii)
HHMN
PF(15)
HMPHOS
PFd6)
ESTS
P F( 17)
BUNKER
PFdB)
PRESUR
PFdfl)
BLTMPF
PF(20)
VnBL / 100.
PF(21)
SCFNTM PRODXN / (2A. 60.
PF(22)
WRKVOL
PF(23)
DAYS
PF(2<.)
SCRLOS
COKSLG
0.0
HUMID 0.0
PRODXN

PRDXNl

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CALL FLINT(CDNST.COKSLGHUHID.PRODXN,PF.DEC,ULTCRBCDKRATI
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
C
WRITE(N0.125) COKRAT
C125
FORMAT(IX,"CALCULATED COKE RATE "Fl'i.2)
COKRAT DETERMINED
C

4 44 9**4*******

CALC SLAC VOLUME AND SOLVE HEAT B A L A N C E

- N U , ( K N O W CriKE RATE AND APPPOXIMAIE IDEA OF PRODUCTION LEVEL

r -POM SIMPLE STABILITY RELATIONSHIP - CALCULATE PARAMETERS
TO PASS TO HIGH TEMP HEAT BALANCE SUBROUTINE

.(ITH KNOWN COKF RATE. CAN N D t ( CALCULATE SLAG VOLUME WITH

MORE ACCURACY - WILL HAVE 10 ASSUME THAT SIOZ. ALZOi. CAD>
AND MGO MAKE UP 9 8 OF THE TOTAL SLAG VOLUME
CMOS "58.
DEVELOPMENT BELOW IS SIMILAR TO P Til OF BF THEORY
AND PRACTICE - VOL 2 NEW STONE CHARGE IS FIRST CALC
TO AGREE WITH B-RATIO MORE CLOSELY SINCE CQKE RATE IS NOW
KNOWN BETTER
CSIHH WT SILICON IN MM CONVERTED TO SILICA WT.
CSIHM ESTSI 2000. <fcO.086*26.OBb)
SIHM ESTSI
CASH COKASH / 100.
GO TO 12B

THE FDLLOWIHG POINT IS THE ENTRY POSITION FOR THE ITERATION FROM
BELOW. THE NEW COKE RATE IS USED TO DETERMINE REOD STONE CHG>
BY ITERATION INTO POINT 128> OR NEW HMSI VALUE IS USED TO SOLVE
AGAIN FOR WTSTON, BY ITERATION INTO POINT 126.

2b

I2b

C
C2iiO
C,
C13^j

CSIHM . PCSlHM 2000.

SIHM . PCSIHM

ItO.OB6/2P.086)

XI -BRDNWT (BRCAOBRMGO- BR AT 10*IBRS102BRAL20))

X? COKRAT CASH (CKCADtCKMGO - BRAT ID(CKSID2CKAL20))
X3 WTFD tFDCAOFDMCO - BRATIO*IFDSIQ2 F D A L 2 n ) )
X*. BRATIO 2000. SIHM (60.086/28.086)
X - XI X2 - X3 t *<i
Y BRATIQ (STSID2STAL2D) - (CONSTI*S1 CACQ*CDNST2STMGC0)
WTSTDN X / Y
WRITE(NO>250) XI.X2, X 3, X<.. X> Y, WT STON
FDRMAT( 1X,"F0R WTSTON ".7E15.^)
WRITE(N0.135) WTSTON
F n R M A T (lX,"FDR B - R A T I O . NEED STONE WT. "Fl'i.3)

C
C - CALCULATE SLAG VOLUME USING P733 BF THEORY AND PRACTICE
C
WSBFC-IBRDNWT*BR5ID2)(WTSTON*ST SI 02)(COKRAT*CKSI02*CASH)
WABFC-(BRDHWT*BRAL20)(WTST0NSTAL20)(C0KRAT*CKAL20CASH)
WH0FC-(BRDNWT*BRMGO)(WTST0N*C0NST2STMGC0)(COKRAT*CKMGOCASH)
WCBFC-(BRDNWT*6RCAQ)(WISTnN*CQNSTlSTCACO)(COKRATCKCADCASH)
C
WSFD . WTFD *FDSI02

WAFD WTFD FDAL

WttI D WTfO FDMG
WCFO WTfD FDCA
SLGIN - WSBFC WA
SLCOUT WSFD WA
SLGVnt <SLGIN -

* WMBFC WCBFC
WHFO WCFD CStHM
/ CMOS

C - PFRCENT SI02 IN SLAG IS FOUND BYl

SLGSIO (W5BFC - WSFD - CSIHMI / SLGVOL
SLGALO (WABFC - W4F0I / SIGVOL
SLGMGO (WMBFC - WMFD) / SLGVOL
SLGCAQ (WCBFC - WCFD) / SLGVOL
CAQSIO SLGCAQ / SLGSIO
flPAT2 (SLGCAQ SLGMGO) / (SLGSIO SLGALO)

I'lS

WRirE(N0>l'<5l SLGVCL> SLGSIO

FORMATdX," SLAG VOLUME "fFl'i.Zf" SLAG SILICA ",F7.<il

SLAG VOLUME FOUND

SOLVE HEAT BALANCE
- (inw CAN CALC THE P A R A M E T E R S THAT GO TO HfAT BALANCE
NOTE THAT HEAT BALANCE USES METRIC GRAMS AND CALORIES
FDR UNITS BUT IT IS STILL BASED ON 2000. LB OF HOT METAL

c
c
c

ALP
BET
GHA
DEL
EPS
GRHDLS BLAST PER NET TON HOT METAL
GHBNTH <SCFNTM*'t53.6)/359.0
WTG02 G RS 02 PER NT TON HOT HETAL ETC
WTG02 VQBL*GKBNTM*32. / 100.
WTGN2 VN2BI4GnBNTH42B0 / 100.
WTGWSC WT (CRAMS) WATER PER SCF BLAST
WTGWSC (GRBLST<r53.6/7000,
WTGH20 WTGWSC SCFNTM
WBLAST WTG02 WTGN2 WTGH2n
PAf( (6) WBLAST
VH20BL (WTGH20/ie.0U / GMBNTM

PAR(3)
PAR(^)
PAR (5)
GMBNT.i -

PArf171 VOBL
PAR(d ) VN2flL
PAP 19) VH20BI 100.
PA(10J BLTHPK
NOW CALCULATE THE WT OF CALCINED STONE INTRODUCED TD THE
HIGH TEMP ZONE AND THEN CONVERT THE SILICA CONCENTRATION
TO THE NEW BASIS
EICSTN ETC. MATERIALS IN CHARGED STONE WHICH DO NOT CALCINE

268

ETCSTN 100. - SICACO - STMr.CO

PCLIM CJNSTl STCACO
PCMAG CDHSTZ SIHGCa
PCNFW PCLIM PCHAG ETCSTN
P A R ( l l ) IWTST0ri*53.61 (PCNEW/100.1
PARI12) . STSIQ2 / (PCNEW/100.)
C
PAP . i n i CDKPAT *.53.6
PARdiil CKSI02 CASH
C
C - CALC UT Df PREREDUCED IRON BURDEN REING INTRODUCED TO THE
C
HIGH TEMP ZDHE - FOR THIS ASSUME THAT 1/3 OF THE IPON
C
CHARGED IS NOW PRESENT AS FEtS) WHILE 2/3 IS NOW FED
PCfEIN 0.6')9'.*FE203 0.72 36 F E 30<. 0 . 7 7 7 3 F E n
FEIN BRDNWT (PCFEIN/100.) + FRFE
FEIN * FEIN * <i53.6
FEOER - (t2./3.)*FEUn / 0.7773
FEBR I(1./3.1 FEIN)
C
C
WT BURDEN IS FOUND BY SUBTRACTING THE WATER AND OXVGEN
C
REMOVED FROM IRON OXIDES DURING DESCENT IH UPPER
C
STACK - FROM THF TOTAL WT CHARGED
C
WTH20 (BRH20/100. l BRDNWTKt53.6
PCOXID FE203 FE30<. FFO
WTOXID (PCOXID/IOO.) BRDNWT *53.6
WTDXYG WTOXID - (FEOBR FEBR)
REMOVD WTH20 WTOXtG
WBR (BRDNWI 'i53.6) - REMOVO
PAR(I5)
WBR
PAR(16) (FEOBR / WB ) 1 0 0 .
PAR(17) (FEBR / WBR 1 0 0 .
PAR(IB)

BRSIOZ * ((

PAR (19 1
PAR(20)

VCOTG
VC02TG

PAR(21 1

SIGVOL

PAR(22) . CP5L
PAR(23)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

CPHM

IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE HEAT LOSS TERM FOR THE
BLAST FURNACE CAM 9E EMPIRICALLY STATED AS A FUNCTION
OF BLAST TEMP. IN THE INLAND STEEL CO. CONTROL PAPER
(SEE DISSERTATION REFERENCES) IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE
CHANGE IH BLAST TEMP REOUIRED TQ MAINTAIN CONSTANT ENERGY
INPUT TO THE HIGH TEMP ZONE OF THE FURNACE IS RELATED TOI
DELT T REOD A1 DEL MOISTURE (GRAINS)
A2 DEL WINDRATE (SCFM)
A3 DEL COKE/GRE RATIO
A* DEL STONE/ORE RATIO
* AS AND Ab * DEL TOPGAS PARAMETERS
A7 DEL COOLING WATER LOSS (UNITSi
10000 BTU/HIN)

C
C
C
C
C
C

IF NniE THAT INCREASED COHLINC WATEP OLDSS RFOUIPES AN

INCREASE IN BLAST TEHPERAtURE
THEN CUNVERSELYf AT CONSTANTS FOR A 1 THRU A b CQEFS
AN INCREASE IN CODLING WATER OLOSS IS EXPECTED IF
THE BLAST TEMPERATURE INCREASES
I.E.
O i r i S S l OLOSS ADDFD LOSS

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

AODED LOSSdOOOOBTU/HINl-DEL TEHP/A7

ADDED L0SStBTU/MIN).(DELTEMP(10000BTU/mN)/A7)*(10000(BTU)
/(lOOOOBTUl
AODED LaSSICAL/HIN|.I10D00DELTEMP(BTU/KlN)/A7l(252CAL/BTU)
ADOtD LDSSICAL/DAr)-t(IOOOO)t2521DELTEMP(CAL/HIN)/A71
(60MIN/Hi!)*(2'iHR/DAY)
ADDED LOSS(CAL/NTHH)-((1COOOI(2S2)(('OI(2<^)DELTEHP(CAL/DAY1
/A7I / PROOXHINTHH/DAY)

NflTfi

t
C
15.0

EMPIRICALLY A7 HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE APPROXIMATELY 5

DOWNNF (1.8 DDWNN) - ^59.76

OLOSSl OLOSS ((BLTMPF-D0WNNF)/5.) 10000. 252.
I'i'.O. / PRODXN
WSrTE(ND150) QLOSSlt PRODXN
FDRAT(1X" OLOSSl- ",E10.5.3X," PRODXN- >>,F10.3)
PAR(2<il OLOSSl
PAR(J5I BUNKER '.53.(1

C
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CALL HFAT(PAR,RNRTMP,PCSI02tP0CC.PCSIHM,PCCHM)
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

*.** HEAT BALANCE HAS BEEN SOLVED

X
55

WRITE(ND.155> RNRTMPf PCSIHM. PCCHH

F0RMAT(1 X , " A T "F7.1 I" OEG F. SILICON AND CARBON

65

URirE(ND,l&5) PCSI02> PDCC

FORMATIIX," SILICA IN S L A C - F 6 . 2 , "

CHECK SLAG SILICA AGREEMENT

DELSIO PCSI02 - SLGSin
TOLSIO SILTOL SLGSIO
IF(AflS(DELSIO) .LT. TOLSIOI GO TO 172
GO TO 126

CALCULATE HOT METAL SULPHUR

- CALC PARTITION PATIO

*"f2F6.3)

LBS CARBON-'S F l l . 2 I

270

c
169

FLAG .TRUE.

C
C
C - USE AMaROSETTI AND CROVELLA IF WITHIN LIMITS C
172

690
691
692
693

TEMPC (RNPTNP - 3 2 . ) ( 5 . / 9 . )
I F I T E M P C . G T .l ' T 9 0 . .D R . T E M P C . L T . I ' L ' I O . ) W R I T E ( N O , 1 6 9 0 ) T E M P C
IFlCAOStO.GT.1 3 . 5 . OR.CAQSIO. L T . 1.0) WRITEINO,1691) CAOSIO
IFICOKRAT.GT. 15 80. .OR.CDKRAT.LT. 12<I0. ) WRITE (NO,1692 )COKRAT
IF(SLGV0L.GT. 9 0 0 ..0R.SLGV0L. L T . S 0 0 . ) WRITFC(NO,1693) SLGVOL

FORnAT( 1*,"TENPC OUT FOR PRTN1 ",F 10.31

FDRMATIIX,"CAOSIO OUT FOR PARTNl", F10.3)
FDRMATn)(,"CDKRAT OUT FOR PARTNl", F10.3)
FDRHATIIX,"SLGVOL OUT FDR PARTNl", F10.3)
PARTNl -1390.365 O.B85TEMPC + 121 .'i 10CAOS 10

69b

WRITEIN0,1695) TEMPC, CAOSIO, PARTNl

FORMATdX,"TEMPC, CAOSIO, AND PARTNl ",3F10.3)

- USE EOIN 7 P5'. - 1971 IH PROCEEDINGS - CALC LOG FtS)

USING FIRST AND SECOND-ORDER INTERACTION COEFFICIENTS lEIONJ
AND PJONI RESPECTIVELY) FDR PURE LIQUID IRON, USING VALUES
GIVEN IN DATA STMTS AT PRGM TOP. ESTS, HhMN, HMPHOS, ARE
DEFINED ON P<i OF PROGRAM. WHILE PCSIHH, AND PCCHH ARE ViLUES
DETERMINED FROM HEAT BALANCE ON P9.
FSS ESQNS ESTS

FSC ECONS PCCHH RCONS PCCHM

2
FSSI ESIONSPCSIHM RSIDNSPCSIHM2
FSMN EHHDHS HMMN
FSPHOS EPHONS HMPHOS
C
FSLOG FSS FSC < FSSI FSMN FSPHOS
C
C - HCO 1.0 PARTIAL PRESSURE OF CO IN FCE.
PCOLOG 0.0
C
C - AC 1.0 ACTIVITY OF CARBON AT SATURATION
ACLQG 0.0
C
RATLOG FSLOG - PCOLOG ACLOG iALOGI0.87))/2.3026
t
1.2 BRATIO
C
RATLN RATLOG 2.3026
PARTNZ EXPtRATLN)
WRIT6(NQ,1727) FSS, FSC, FSSI, FSMN, FSPHOS, PARTN2
1727
FORMATIIX, "PARTN2 ",6F12.5)
C
C
C
PARTN 12.0 PARTNl PARTN2) / 3.0
IF(PARTN .LE. 0.0) GO TO 1930

C
C
C

CX
1825
C-

CALC INPUT
CHGSUL
CMGSUL
CHGSUL

SULPHUR WT.
(BRDIIWT*flPSULPI IWTSTONSTSULP)
CHGSUL tCOKIiATCQKES) (BUNKERtBUNKPS I
CHGSUL / 100.

CALC HOT METAL SULPHUR AND SLAG SUIPHUR

HMS CHGSUL / (SLGVOL^PARTN
ZOOO.l
HMS HMS 100.
PCSSLG HMS PARTN
WRITEINO'IBZ;) HMS> PCSSLG
FORMAT(1*."HMS PCSSLG ",2F10.5I

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

C
C

CALCULATE CDKERATE THE 2ND TIME

ONLY SEVERAL OF THE PARAMETERS PASSED TO THE FLINT
SUBROUTINE MUST BE CALCULATED AGAIN. ALL OF THE OTHERS
SHOULO NOT HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME
USING THE "SLGASH" TERM FROM P3 OF THE MAIN PGM
COKSLG COKRAT SLGASH / 100.
SLAG FROM UNCALCINEO LIMESTONE ETC
UNCALC (WTST0N*C0NST1*STCAC0I (WTSTONCONST2*STMGCOl
UNCALC UNCALC/IOO.
PFll) UNCALC
ALL OTHER SLAG
SLGOTH BRDNWT*(flRCA0'tBRMG0'BRSin2*BRALZ0)
SLGOTH SLGOTH t W T S T O N t S T S I C 2 STAL20n
SLGOTH SLGOTH/ 100.
PFIZ) SLGOTH
FOP HUMIDITY
HUMID GRBLST
VARIOUS OTHER PARAMETERS
PFdOl CHGSUL
PF(13) PCSIHM
PF(16) HMS
CALC PRODUCTION RATE FROM OTHER 0 C S EOTN.
SLPOXN SLGVOL PRODXN / 2000.
OILNID BUNKER PRODXN / 2000.
SET VALUES OF PELLETS. COARSE ORE. AND SCF/MIN
FDR SIMPLIFICATION
PELETS 50.0
CORSOR 5.0
SCFMM 10<i000.0
PDXl 1035.0 (12.P5STBl) (0.00?1*SCFMM)
P0X2 . (4.09*PELETS) (5.32C0RS0R)
PD*3 . (-l.'.76'.EB / <SLPDXN*2))
PDX^ - (57.27C0KASHl
PDX5 0.<.6DILNT0
PDX6 (60./100.1 (BLTMPK-DOWNN) l.B

P R D X N ? P D * 1 POX?. P O X * ! P 0 * 5 P D X b
WP1TE(N0< 1001) PRDXNZ<PDXl>PDX2>PDX3f PDX'i>Pbl(>POX&
FnKHAT(lX,"FOR PR0XN2 " , 7 F 1 0 . ? )
PPDDXN PRDXN2

1001

C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CALL FLINT(CONSTcnKSLG,HUMIOPPDXN2.Pf.DEC.ULTCRe.COKRIZI
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
C
WRtTE(HDT 1 0 0 3 ) CtlKRTZ
C1003
FORMAT(IX,"C0KRT2 " , F 1 0 . 3 )
C

C0KRT2 FOUND

C
C
C
C

CHECK COKE RATE AGREEMENT

OELCRT CQKRAT - CQKBT2

TOLCRT CKTDL CDKRT2
WPITE(N0,1005) TOLCRT
FOPHATdX,"TOLCRT "tFlO.3)
COKRAT C0KRT2

C
1005

IFIABSIDELCRT) . G T . TDLCPT) GO TO 1 2 8
C

I F t . N O T . FLAG) GO TO 1(J9
GO TO 1 7 7
C

C
c
C

FINAL RESULT PRINTOUT

1930
1931

WRITE(NGr1931)
F a P M A T ( l X . " P A R T l T i n N R A T I O PROBLEM - JOB ABORT"!

177

CONTINUE

GO TO 2 0 0 0

191
t

WRITEINn.191) PRDXN2, WTSTON, COKRAT. PCSI02

FCRHATtlX,"PR0DXN",F9.2.5X."WTSTDN".Fb.2,5X,"COKRAT",
F<.?.,5X"PCSI02 "Fb.3)
WRITE(N0,192) RNRTHPT

192
E
193

PCSIHM, HHS/ BRAT2

F0a.1AT(lX,"PNRTnP OEG F " . F 9 . 2 , 5X, "PCS IHM", F6 . 3 . 5 X .

"HMS"iF6.'i,5X, "BPATIO"f F6.2)
WRITE(N0>193) OLOSS# OLOSSl
FORMATIbX,"OLOSS I "E12.53X."OLOSSl I " . E 1 2 . 5 )

c *,,,**,,,,************,*****,*,***,******,******,******
C

C
C
C

c
C
C
C
C
C

*****************************,*************************

(G) - CALCULATE THE RETPTN I COST/NTHM UNOER THIS SET OF

X/O CONDITIONS. (WITHOUT THE COKE COMPONENT), USING
n r i E - D A r s PRODUCTION AS THE BASIS, MUST KNOWI BRDNMT,
WTSTON, BLTMPF, SCFNTM, PRODXN, GRAINS H20 I N BLAST,
V A R I O U S C O S T S FOR C H A R G E C O M P O N E N T S ( C S T B P D E T C . )
AND FINALLY THE FIXED COSTS PER DAY FDR THE BASE CASE.
(CALCULATED BEFORE PROGRAM PUS AND INPUT AS DATA.)
( S E E S U B R O U T I N E C A L C F O R MORE I N F O R M A T I O N I N C O M M E N T S . )

273

C
E

CALL CLC(CSTBRD> CSTSTN* CSTBNK, CSTOF':. CSTSTGr TFC>

BI!DHWT> BUNKER. GRBLST> UTSTDN> SCFNTHi BLTHPFr PRODXN,
RETPTNI

( H I - THE FOLIOWING DO-LDDP THRU 1 9 9 0 . FINDS OUT WHAT THE

CALCULATED COKERATF CORRESPONDS T0 IN TERMS OF THE
INPUT VARIABLE OF CDKWT.
EACH STEP LETTERED BELOW FROM
I TO S I S FDR THE SINGLE OUTPUT FROM THE COMBINATION X/D
ABOVE. AS IT PUTS THE PROPER VALUES AT THE CORRECT SPOT
I N THE TABLES] STABLE. AND ITABLE.
HMWT OOWNO - DELO
DO 1 9 9 0 KYWT l . N O O
HMWT HMUT DELO
( I ) - CONVfRT RETPTN J/NTHM TO DOLLAR i / N T STEEL
DOLLAR RETPTN HMWT
( J 1 - FIND INPUT VARIABLE COKWT (TONS COKE/NT S T E E L ) .
KNOWING COKRAT (TONS COKE/NTMH)
COKWT COKRAT HMWT
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
X
WRITE(N0>1041 HMWT. DOLLAR. COKWT
Ci
FCIRMATdX." HMWT.",F10.3." DOLLAR COST/TON STEEL
C
F I D . 3 . " COKE WT. REOD " . F I G . 3 )
C

( K ) - FIND INDEX FOR COKWT INPUT VEClORi IXCW

lERR 0
COKTON COKWT / ZOOO.
CALL FINDICOKTON, ODWNK. NOK. DELK. IXCW, lERR)
I F d E R P . E C . I I GO TO 1990

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

( L ) - KNOWING I X S . M A S H . IXSTB AND NOW IXCW. THEN PROCEED

TO DEFINE IXND*. WHICH I S THf SINGLE NUMBER REPRESENTING THE INDEX OF THE ROW UNDER CONSIDERATION
lERR 0
CALL DFINE(NOH. NOI. NOJ. NOK. IXS. IXASH. IXSTE. IXCW.
IXNDX. lERRI
IFdERR .EO. I I CO TO 1 9 9 0
(Ml - DEFINE JDNDX. KNOWING PRESENT VALUES OF JDBR. JDSCF.
AND JDBT.
lERR 0
CALL DEFINE(NOL. NOM. NON. 0 . JDBR. JDSCF. JDBT. 0 .

JDNDX. lERRI
I F d E R R . E O . I I GO TO 1 9 9 0

C
C

C
C

(Dl - KNOWING HMS. FIND KYS INDFX

lERR 0
CALL FIND(HMS. DOWNP. NOP. DELP. KYS> lERRI
I F d E R R .EO. 1 1 GO TO 1 9 9 0
( P I - KNOWING HMSI

(PCSIHMI. FIND KfSI INDEX,

274

IfRP 0

CALL f I N D t P C S l H H > DDWNO> NDO, DELO> KYSI> l E R P )

I F d E R P .EO. I I GO TO 1 9 9 0
C
C

( 0 1 - KNOWING H(i TEMPERATURE ( R N R T H P ) . FIND KYT I N D E X .

lERR > 0
CALL FINOIBNaTMP. DOWNKt NOR. DELR. KYT lERRI
I F d E R R .EO. 1 ) GO TO 1 9 9 0

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

( R ) - FINALLY KNOWING KYS# K Y S I , KYT ANO KYNT. WHICH I S

THE INDEX OF THIS DO-LOOPf FIND KYNDX WHICH WILL GO
INTO THE ITABLE WHICH CONTAINS THE TRANSFORMATION
FUNCTION.
lERR ' 0
CALL DEFINEINOO. NOP. NOO, NOR, KYWT, KYS. KYSIt
KYT. KYNDX, lERRI
I F d E R R .EO. I I GO TO 1990
( S I - F I L L IN THE ITABLE OF TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE
OTABLE OF RETURNS, FDR THIS SPECIFIC CASE OF X / 0 , I E .
AT LOCATION (IXNDX.JDNDX) (NOTE< DOLLAR WILL BE *
COST SO MAKE I T P O S I T I V E ) .
ITABLE d X N O X , JONDX) > KYHDX
OTABLEdXNOXfJDNnx) * DOLLAR

C
2300

1990
C
C
2000
C
C
C DEBUS
C
CX
2005
C
2010
2020
C
C
C
C
2030
20110
C
C
C
C

W R I T E (Na, 2 3 0 0 1 I X N D X , J D N D X , K Y N D X , D O L L A R
FORMAT(IX,"
IXNOX-",I 3,3X,"
*JDNDX-13,3X
II
KYNDX", 13, 3X,"
DOLLARS'", F7.2)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
PRINTOUT OF OTABLE ANO ITABLE
WRITE(NO,2005)
FORMAT(lHl)
DO 20Z0 I-l,LENGTH
WR1TE(N0,2010)
(OTABLE(I,J). J-1,IWIDTH)
FORMAT(20F6.2//)
CONTINUE
UPITE(N0,200S)
DO 2 0 4 0 I-l,LENGTH
WRITE(N0,2030) (ITABLE(I,J), J'l,IWIDTH)
F0RMAT(20I&,//)
CONTINUE

DO 2100 !],LENGTH
WPITE(1,2105) (OTABLEd/J), J-1,IWIDTH)

275

2105

1100
C
C
220i
2200
C
C
C
C
3000

F0i?M*rn0F10,3)
CONTINUE
on 2200 I.1,LENGTH
WRITEI1>2205) (ITAHLE(I>Jlf
FrRliTdono)
CONTINUE

STOP
6N0

J>1>IWIDTHI

SOBBUDTINE FLINT
1

10

15

20

25

30

35

ItO

as

50

55

csssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
C
FLINT SUDBOJTINE TO CALCULATE CCKE hATE L'llEN THE DECIHAL
C
EFF CARUON IS KNOWN fOB THE COKE C0NSIDE2ED AND THE VARIOUS
C
PAKA.1ETERS AhK INPUT - 1973 USS CCEFt ICIl^NTS ABE USLD
C
SUBfiOUTINE FLINT(CONST,CCKSLG,HUHID,PnO0XN,PF,EEC,ULTCBB.COKBAT)
DIHENSIUN PF(2<1), VAB (32)
C
NI = 5
NO = 6
C
C
1;RITE(HO,10) (PF (I) ,I=1,2')
C
WRITE(N0, 10) CONST,COKSLG,EUniD,DEC,DLTCBB
CIO
FOBaAT(5El2.4)
C
VAB(1) = COKSLG 0.6
VAB(2) = PF(1) O.KS
VAU(3) = PF(2) 0.15
VAB(lt) = PF(3) * 0.12
VAB(5) = PF(a) 0-00
VAH{6) = PF(5) O.OH
TAU(7) = PF(6) 0.0
VAR(8) = PF(7) 0.03
VAR(9) = Pr(8) 0.05
VAB(IO) = PF(9) 0.10
VAE(II)
VAR (12)
VAR(13)
VAB(IU)
VAB(15)
VAR(16)
VAR (17)
VAR(IU)

= PF(10) 3.0
= PF(11) (-0.25)
= 0.0
= 0.0
= PF(12) (-O.O)
= PF(13) 110.0
= PF(1'() 20.
= PF(15) 20.
DECSUL = PF(16) / 100.
DECSIL = PF (13) / 100.
VAH(19J = (0.013/(DECSUL+0.232*(DECSIL**2))) -1*0.2
VAB(20) =0.0
VAR(21) =0.0
VAR(22)
VAR(23)
VAn(2l)
VAR(25)
VAR(26)
VAE(27)

= PF(17) (-.90)
=0.0
=0.0
0.0
= 0.0
= PF(18) (-1.0)
T = PF(19)
B = PF(20)
VAH(28)= l(.000062bI2)-.375X200.)(1.0-2.8*(B-0.21))
VAB(29) = (Pf (21)/Pf(22)) * 70.

VAR(30) = (HUIHDPF (21)60.2'1.) / (7000.PEODXK)

VAR(30) = VAn(30) o.ao
VAK(31) = PF(23) * 0.02
VAR(32) = PF(2U) * 10.0

277

SUBBOUTIHB FLIHT

60

CCCC
C

WBITE(NO, 10) (VAB <I),1= 1,32)

sun = 0.0
DO 100 1= 1,32

sun = SUN
65

70

75

80

VAE (I)

100
CONTIMOE
C
C - IF KNOW COKE RATE GO ONE v h x AND CALC CCKS RATE WIIH
C
ULTCBD, OUT IF DONT KNOH COKRAT THEN GO THE OTUEE WAY AMD
C
CALC LD CUKE/NIHH USIUG DEC
C
IF(VAR(1) .EQ. 0.0) GC TO 200
C
C
OTHERWISE CALC COKE RATE KNCUING COKE SLAG ConPOHENT
C
CAROnX = CONST SUrt
COKRAT = CAREHT / (ULTCHD / 100.)
RETURN
C
C
CARDRT = COHST SUrt
200
COKRAT = CARDRT / DEC
RETURN

EHD

278

SUBOOUTIIIE HEAT
I

10

C
c
c
SUBHOUTIHE HEAT{tAH,nilRTHP,PCSI02,PDCC,PCSiaa,PCCllH)
C
C
C - THIS IS THE SUBHOUTIHE THAT CALCULATES HH SI, HMS, AMD
C
Hll TEHP AT THE IiUKHEh, KhOUIMG CEhTAIN FAHAHETEfiS
DIMENSION PAR (20)
DIMENSION SI02(), 1HP(<*), UCC(), WTG(1)
DIMENSION A(16], B (t), nHS(<4)
NI=5
HO =

15

20

25

30

35

l0

45

50

55

C
1IRITE(NO,120) (PAB (I) ,1=1,25)
C
C120
FOHnAT(5lE15.5,ll))
C
C ASSIGN PABAHETEH VALUES AND PfiELlB CALCS
C
ALP = PAB(1)
DET = PAB (2)
GflA = PAR(3)
DEL = PAE(a)
EPS = PAH (5)
W3L = PAB(O)
VOIIL = PAR (7)
VN2DL = PAll( a )
VH20DL = PAR (9)
TDL = PAR(IO)
KST = PAH (11)
SI02ST = PAn(12)
COKRAT = PAH(13)
SI02CK = PAH(lt)
UBH = PAH(15)
FEOBH = PAR(16)
HeUH = PAR (17)
SI02BB PAB (18)
VCOTG = PAB(19)
VC02TG = PAR(20)
DSL = PAB(21)
CPSL = PAB(22)
CPHH = PAR (23)
QLOSS = PAB(2U)
DUNKER = PAR (25)
C
C
CONVEBT VOL : IN BLAST 50 WT ;
C
UMUL = 32. VOBL 28. VN2QL 18. VH20DL
HOBL = 100. 32. VOEL / HMBL
UH2BL = 100. 28. VN2BL / HMBL
L'1I20BL = 100. *18. * VH20BL / UMBL
C
C
DO SAME FOB TOPGAS
C
UMTG =28.01VCOTO*i.01VC02TG28.0(100.-VC0TG-VC02TG)

279

SUBHOUTIHE HEAT
COTG = 100. 2B,01 VCOTU / kHTC
C02TG =100. 1|.01 VC02TG / HMTG
60

C
C
C
C

SIKl = (W5I*SI02S'I) (COKRATSI02CK) + (UBfiSI02BBJ

SIK2 = (1.66'43E-) * SIKl
SIK3 = -323.01 * ALP
SIKl = (l.tBteBBS) BET
RHS(l) = 5IK2 S1K3 SIKH
SI02(1) = 1.0
TflP(l) = 5in. DEI
WCC{1) =0.0
WTG(1) = 0.0

65

70

75

DO SILICON DALAHCE

C
C
C

DO CABBOH BALANCE
PHI = DliL + (BET EPS)
PSI = GBA (ALP EPS)

BIIS{2) = (9.072E3rsi)-('4.17035E6PHl)-(0.8CDUNKEB)
SI02(2) = 0. 0
Tnp(2) = ("i.fesaEa PHI)

80

WCC(2) = 1.0
WTG(2) = -((U.2d78E-3 * COIG) (2.729E-3 C02TG))
85

C
C
C

B1 = (1.877oWBL*W0BL) . (WSTSI02ST) (C0KBATSI02CK)

EHS{3) = SI (HERSI02Ln) ( .M IB lU* Hi3B*f EOUB)
SI02{3) = 6008.26
TMP(3) = 0.0
WCC(3) = 0.0
WIG(3) = (1.0725COIG) (1.3652C02TC)

90
C
C
C
95

100

105

110

DO OXVGEN BALANCE

FINALLY DO BEAT BALANCE

QKt = (5.335*kDBFEGBt)(5.5321E7)"(5.5&U5E5*(ALPtGMA*ALP*EPS))
QK2 = (2.555E8*(Ea*CEL + EETEPS)) (23. Ub7UBL*ll20BL)
0K3 = {-16. ya3*i(DLW0BL) (<4. b6E7ALP) - (2.1K2210BET)
OKI = (3.a52E6PSI) - (1.7709E9PIII)
HOBL = 9805.-(7.16TEL)-(.5E-J*rBL2)-(.aES/TBL)
IINBL = 9162.-(6.66:BL)-(.51-3IBL2)
IIHBL = 110U8--{7.17XbL)-(1.2aE-3*TBL2)(.OdE5/TBL)
0K5 = (3. 12bE-'4WLWGliL*IIOBL)
0 k 6 = (3.571E-i(*fcDLN2DL*HH0L)
QK7 = (5.555E-'KELUH20DLIIHBL)
OKU = -9.07iE5 1255. CPII3 - W3LCPSL 1230.
HCOS= OKI 0X2 0K3 + (!Ki + 0K5 CK6 QK7 (3K8 QLOSS
HHS()=-HCOHS
S102(a) = -20000. lOUO.
TP1 = -1.0E6*(DT-CEL'EETEPS) + 8.388E7BET
TP2 = 6.93l)3E6(DEL + BETEPS)
rP3 = (9.072E5CPIia) (WSLCPSL)
TrtPCt) = TP1 TP2 TP3
CCC(t) =0.0
WTG(i) = -9.155*C02rG

SUBHOOrrNE HEAT
115

C
C
C

GET SIMULTAllEOUS EQUAHOHS

A(1) = SI02(1)
A (2) = .S102(2)
A (3) = SI02(3)

120

ATU) = S102(T)

125

130

135

A (5) = TtlP(l)
A(6) = TI1P(2)
A( 7 J = T.1P(JJ
A(8) =
A (9) = WCC(1)
A(10) = CC(2)
A (11) = WCC(3)
A (12) = WCC(I)
A (13) = UTG(1)
A(1i|) = WTG(2)
A (15) = UTG(3)
A(1b) = NTG(4)
CCCC
WniTE(H0,115)
CCCC115
F0R>1AT(1H/)
CCCC
l.'niTE(llO,120) (A(I), 1=1,16)
C

R (1) = BHS(1)
n(2) = RHS(2)
1((3) = RHS(3)

HO

n(H) = Hiis(i<)
CCCC

URITE(NO,120) (H(I), 1=1,)

CALL GELG(R,A,U, l,10.H-6,I)

4*****

)q5

c
c - t h e OUTPUT o f THE GELG SUBHOOTIHE IS THE VECTOR OP

150

155

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

160

165

SIZE M, AKD THE OUTPUTS CORRESPOND TO;

B(l) = GB.HCLS Of SILICA IH THE SLAG
H(2) = HOT KEIAL TEnPEBATUHE (aUNSER) DEU K
K(3) = GH. CARDC/N FROH THE COKE GOIKG INTO
THE Hl-TEMP ZONE
R(4) = GB. TOPGAS LEAVIMG THE HI-IEHP ZONE
TDEGP = (1.U*B(2)) -459.76
DNRTHP = TDEGf
PCSI02 = (H(l) 6008.6) / U5L
PDCC = R(3) / 453.6
PDTG = R() / 453-6
SCFTG = (R(4) / WHEL) .79145
PCSIHB = ALP + BLTTDEGF
PCCIIM = PSI PHI*TDEGP
RETURN

ELID

281

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

US

c
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
,C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

i;UOI)OUTlIJE GELG
PURPOSE
TO aOLVE A G^EliAL SXSTIM OF SIKOLTANEOUS EQUATIONS
USAGE
CALL GELG(R,A,H,H,EPS,IEB)
UE3C1.1PTI0N OF PAHAHEIEBS
H

- TilE H Elf N HATUIX OF KIGHT HAND SlUES. (DESTROYED)

o;i BErUIUI, B CONTAINS THE SOLUTION OF THE EUUATIONS.
A - THE N BY M COEFFICIENT HATKIX. (DESTROYED)
H - THE NUHUEK OF EQUATIONS IN THE SYSTEH.
N - THE KUH3ER OF EIGHT HAND SIDE VECTOKS.
EPS - AN INPUT CONSTANT WHICH IS USEU AS KELATIVE
T0LE6AKCE FOB TEST ON LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
lER - RESULTING ERKCCB PAIiAdETEfi CODED AS FOLLOWS;
lEB =0 NO EKBOB
lEB = -1
NO RESULT DICAUSE OF It LESS THAN 1 OB
PIVOT ELEKENT AT ANY F.LIHINATION STEP
IS EQUAL TO ZERO
lEB = K
WARNING DUE TO POSSIULE LOSS OF SXGHIFICANCE INDICATED AT ELIMINATION
STEP K 1, MHEUE PIVOT ELEMENT WAS
LESS THAN Ofl EQUAL TO THE INTEtiNAL
TOLERANCE TlBiS THE ADSOLUTELY
GREATEST ELEMENT OF MATRIX A.
BEMABKS:
INPUT MATRICES R AND A ARE ASSUMED TO BE STOKED COLUMNWISE
IN nll BESP. HM SUCCESSIVE STOWAGE LOCATIONS. ON EETUfiS
SOLUTION MATHIX R IS STChEC CCLUHNUISE TOO.
THE PHOCEDUHE GIVES RESULTS If THE KUMUER OF EQUATIONS h IS
GREATER TBANT 0 AND PIVOT ELEMENTS AT ALL ELIMINATION STEPS
ARE DIFFERENT FROII 0. HCWEVEB WARNING lEB = K - IF GIVEN INDICATES POSSIBLE LOSS Of SIGNIFICANCE. IN CASE OF A WELL
SCALED MATRIX A AND APPRCPKIATE TOLERANCE EPS, IR = K HAY
UE INTEHPBETED THAT MATBIX A HAS THE RANK K. NO WABNIUG
IS GIVEN IN CASE H = 1.
SUUBOUTINES AND FUNCTION SUBPBOGRAMS REQUIRED - HONE
METHOD - SOLUTION IS DONE EY MEANS OP GAUSS-ELIMINATIOH
WITH COMPLETE PIVOTING

*****************.***************

50

C
1

55

SUBROUTINE GELG(B,A,M,N,EPS,lEH)
DIMENSION A (1),R (1)
IF(M) 23,23,1
SEARCH FOB GBEATESI ELEMENT IN MATBIX A
lEB = 0
PIV = 0.
HM = n * H
KM = H n
DO 3 1=1, MH
TB = ADS(A(L))
IF(TB - PIV) 3,3,2

SUUKOUriHE GELG
2

60

05

3
C
C
C
C

START ELiaiNATIOH LOOP

LST = 1
do 17 K=1,H

C
C
70
h

5
6

7
75

80

PIV = T0
I = L
CONTlllUE
TOL = EPS PIV
A (I) IS PIVOT ELEt1i;T. PIV CONTAIMS THE ABSOLUTE
VALUE Of A (I).

TEST OM SINGULAHlTt
IP(PIV) 23,23,t
IF(IEn)7,5,7
IF(PIV-TOL)6,b,7
lEH = K-1
PIVI = 1. / A (I)
J = (1-1) / B

1 = 1 - J*H - K

J = J f 1 - K
I*K IS BOH IHDEX.

C
C
C
C

85
a
C
C

0*K CCLUMM-IHDEX OF PUVOT ELEBEHT

PIVOT FOW BEDOCIICH AHD ROU IIITEBCHANGE IM RIGHT

HAND SIDE R.
DO U L==K,NH,H
LL = L I
TB = PIVI BILL)
R(LL) = R(L)
R (L) = TB
IS ELXaiNATION TERMINATED

IF(K-H) 9,18,18
90

C
C
9
10

95

11

100

C
C
12

105
13
C
C
110

COLUKH INTERCHANGE IN MATRIX A

LEHD = LST n - K
IF(J) 12,12,10
II = J M
DO 11 L = LSI,LEHD
TB = A(L)
LL = L II
A(L) = A{LL)
A (LL) = TB

C
C

ROM IKTEKCHAHGE AND PIVOT HEDUCTION IN MATRIX i

DO 13 L = LST,nH,n
LL = L I
TB = PIVI A(LL)
A (LL) == A (L)
A(L) = 13
SAVE COLUMN INTERCHANGE INFORMATION
A (LSI) = J
ELEMENT REDUCTION AND NEXT PIVOT SEARCH
PIV = 0.0
LST = LST 1
J = 0

SUBAUUTIHE GELS
115

DO 16 II = LST,LEHD
PIVI = -A(XI)
ISI = II H

J = J 1
DO 15 L = ISr.MM.H
LL = L - J
A{L) = A(L) + PIVIA(LL)

120

TB = ADS (A (L) )

IF (Tfl - PIV) 15, 15, It

in
125
15
16
17

130
C

I = L
CONTIHaE
DO 16 L =
LL = L J
B (LL) = K(LL) * PIVIB(L)
LST = LST M
BHD OF ELlrtlKATICH LOOP

C
c
C
135

PIV = IB

20

DACK SUOSIITIUIICN AND DACK INTEBCilAHCE

IF{a-1) 23,22,19
1ST = nfl N
LST = M 1
DO 21 1=2,H
II = LST - I
1ST = 1ST - LST
L = 1ST -
L = A (L) *0.5
DO 21 J=II,NM,a
TD = B(J)
LL = J
DO 20 K=IST,HH,n
LL = LL 1
TU = T8 - A(K) (LL)

21
22

B(J) = R(K)
B(K) = TB
BETUBH

18
19

lUO

Its

K = J L
150
C

155

c
C
23

EBBOB BETUEN
lEB = -1
BETOBM
END

284

SUUiiOUTIHE CALC
1

c
c
c
5
6
6
10

15

20

25

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

30

35

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

to

15

C
C
C
C

SUUHOUTISE CRLCtCSlBRD, CSTSTK, CSTBHK, CSIBfG, CSTSIG,

TPC, UaUHilT, BU NKEB, GBBLST, UTSTON, iiCFNlH, BLTJlPF,
PUOUXIi, RETPTN)

THIS SUDROUTIHE CALCULATES THE TOTAL COST -PEU DAYFOB A TYPICAL 2 6 1/2 FOOT BLAST FUHNACE, FliOB THE UWIT COSTS
AND CALCULATED WEIGHTS PASSED FPOM THE ISAIM. BEJOHE fiUNUIHG
PGH A TOTAL DAILY FIXED COST MUST BE CALC. FOB BASE CASE.
THIS IS DEFINED AS THAT TPD AT WHICH UEFCBt-TAX PROFIT (1) IS
KNOWN, AND CAN BE DEFINED AS A PEBCENTAGE OF THE BEALIZED
DAILY REVENUE (B) FBOM "SALE" Cf HOT HETAL AT ITS INPUT COST
THE MODEL USED, CONSIDEHS THAT THE VARIABLE COSTS INCLUDE:
METALLIC BUKDEN COST, COKE COST, STONE COST, INJtCTANT
COST, AMU STOVE FIRING-GAS COST, A CREDIT IS BEALIZED FOB
BYPKODUCT BLAST FCE GAS. BY CIFFEBENCE, IIXfcD COSTS PEB DAT
INCLUDE: DIRECT LABOR WHICH IS CONSTANT PER DAY OVEH A
KIDH BAHGE, MAINTENANCE, SLAG DISPOSAL, BUST CLEANING AND
DISPOSAL, PROPERTY TAXES, INTEREST AND DEPHECIATIOM. NOTE
THAT THIS ASSUMES THAT THE VARIOUS OPERATING PABAMETEKS
HAVE NO EFFECT OH TJIE DEPHECIAULE LIFETIME FOh THE FCE.
VCKET = ((DHDKMI/2000.) PRODXN) CSTBBD
VCCOK IS HANDLED IN THE DP ALGO
VCSTON = ((WTSTON/2000.) PBODXN) CSTSTH
VCINJ = (UUNKEB PRODXN) CSTBBK
VACIAtLE COST FOB GAS KEQD TO HEAT THE BLAST ICE STOVES
TO THE ULTKPF ECC, IS CALC FBOfl A MULTIPLE LIliEAh bEGBESSION
OF DATA TAKEN FRO!) P973 OF BLASl FURNACE THEOBY E PRACTICE.
THE NCMOGRAH WAS USEE AT CONSTANT 1.6 RATIO OF TIME ON BLAST
TO TIME ON HEAT AND AI A CONSTANT 75: OVERALL THERMAL EFFIC.
THE ECTN REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN EATA EE SCALED BY: DIVIDING
"SCFM CALLED FOR" BY 1000, AND MULTIPLYING RESULTING VALUE
BY 10000 TO CCME OUT WITH KMBTU/HIN BEUUIHED.
SCFM = (SCF.1TH PRODXN) / (2M. 60. 1000.)
KEQGAS = -2a9.35 0.7ug996 GBBLST
C
+ 2.055S6 SCFH 0.16722U DLTHPF
UTUPDY = REQGAS 10000. 60. 21.
VCSTOV = BTUPDY CSTSTG
CALC CBEDIT FOR BLAST FCE GAS GEKEBATEB - USING 3 TONS
GAS/liTHM, 29.13 MW, 92.6 BT0/FI3 SEE P.69 BSCT.
CRGAS = 3.0PBOUXH*2000.359.S2.6CSTBFG / 29.13

50

55

VARCST = VCMET VCSTON t VCINJ + VCSTOV

CSTPUY = TFC VARCST - CHGAS
CONVERT TOTAL COST, IC COST PER TON CF HOT METAL
RETPTN = CSTPDY / PHODXM
RETUBH

*
END

APPENDIX F

PROGRAM LISTINGEXTDES.TAB

285

286

c
C

10

15

20

25

30

35

aO

US

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
C

50
C
55

C
C

PfOGBAa EXTDES{1NPU1,OUTPUT,TAPE5 = INPUX',TAPE6=0UTI'IJT)

PH0GHA.1 EXTDFS(INPUT,OUTPUT,TAPE1 ,TAPE'j= INPUT,TfttEl>=OUTPUT)
TIIL FULLOWING PiiOGliAH PKFDICTS OUTPUT SULPHUU AND
TEMPhRATUhE Of ilOX HEIAL FCFL VAHLOUS EXTEPKAL UESULPIIUR-

IZATICN OrriO-SS, AT GIVEN VALUES OF THE INI'UT HOI METAL.

HEQUinEJ DATA INPUTS AHE: THE MARKET COST OF EACH OF THE 3
IIEAGENIS COI.SIDEHED; (CAC2, HAGCOKE, AKD LIME), HIE COML'OSITION OF IKOUSTHIAL GRACE HAGCOKE AND CARDLDT, THE TYPICAL
COST OF OKE TON OF HOT METAL {TO CALCULATE THE COST ASSOCIATED
WITH THE 3TAL LOSS FPCrt THE PROCESS), AND THE STANDARD
TEMPERATURE DROP (DEG F) EXPECTED FOR HOT KEIAL FRC1 THE
HUNHEH UNTIL FINALLY CHARGED TO THE BOF, WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL
DBSULPHURIZATION.
FOR ANY ONE COMDINATION OF HH SI, S AND TEMP, THERE ARE
18 POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOE CESULPHURIZING: (1) DO NOTKISG, (2)
1 PLUNGE HAGCOKE AT 1.5 LB. CCNTAINEC G PER NTHH, (3)
2 PLUNGE RAGCOKE, AT 3.0 LB. MG, (l|-8) FIVE CAC2 INJECTIONS
III INCREMENTS FRDM a.SU TO 11.LU. CONTAINED CAC2/
NTH1, (J-13) FIVE CAC2 ACDITICNS WITH KE STIRliER IN INCREMENTS
FROM 1.2 TO 3.a LB. CONTAINED CAC2; AND FINALLY (1H-10) FIVE LIME
ADDITIONS FH0.1 10.64 TO 33.5 LD/NTHM.

THE RELATIVE EFFICIENCIES CP EACH OF THE 3 BEAGEHTS, IN THE

FOUR POSSISLF CONFIGURATIONS, ARE CALCULATED USING A "REACTION
RATE CONSTANT", (CONMGC, CONINJ, CONKR, CONLIM), Df.TERtilKED
FROM ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL PATA. FOB EXAMPLE, THE VALUE OF CAC2
USING KR STIRRING REFLECTS VERY EFFICIENT JAPANESE PRACTICE.
THE STAGE RETURN (CCST) FOR EACH INPUT VECTOR/ DECISION
VECTOR COMBINATION, IS THE SUM OF (1) FACTORED AMOUNTS OF
THE MAGCOKE REAGENT FOR A SPECIFIC STANDARD CASE (WHERE
THE FACTORED AMOUNTS CORRESPOND TO: FIXED COSTS FOR EQUIP.
DEPSF.CIATION, llEFRACIOBY COSTS, VABIOOS CONSUMABLES, SLAO
DISPOSAL, LABOH, ETC.), (2) THE AMOUNT OF HOT flETAL LOST
BY SPLASHING AND SLAG SKIMMING, AND (3) THE COST FOB THE
AMOUNT OF ACTUAL REAGENT USED.
THE STAKUABD CASE FOB MHICH THE HAGCOKE KEAUENT COST IS
DETERMINED IS FOB REMOVING SULPHUR FROM .OUJ TO .018. PER P.2-21
(SEDHM) IK 1975 TOTAL COST FOR THIS KAS J2.30/NTHM. THEN USING
DATA ON P. 13-11 (SEDHB) THE OTHER AMOUNTS WERE DETERMINED AS
A FACTORED AMOUNT OF THE HAGCOKE COST.
INITIALIZE *
DIMENSION S0UT(18), SI10UT(18), THP0UT(18), T0TC(18)
DIMENSION WT(3,5)
UI3KN3IQN QTAELE(350,20), ITADLE(350,20)
FOR OIIE PLUNGE AND TUO PLUNGE /lAGCGKE
DATA WT1PLG, WT2PLG/ 1.5, 3.0/
FOR CAC2 INJECTION
DATA (WT(1,I),I=1,S)/3.5, <.8, 6.3, 8.3, 11.1/
FOR CAC2 WITH KR SUB

287

PlIOGHAH EXTOES
DATA (UT(2,I) ,1=1,5)/ 1.2, 1.6, 2.2, 2., 3. B/
fOH LIBc; INJECTION
DATA (WT(3,I) ,1=1.5)/ 10.6, 1IJ.1, 19. 1, 25. 1, 33.5/

60

NX = 5
NO = b
65

C
C
C
c
100

70

75

c
c
c
c
c

80

ACCEPT THE .MA.'IKET COSTS FOII THE THREE REAGENTS

IN i PER POUND OF ACTUAL BEAGIMT: NAGCOKE, CAC2, LIHE.
BEAD(NI,100) CSTCAC, CSTHGC, CSTLIJl
FOEMAT(3F10. 3, 13)
ACCEPT THE PURITY OF THE (1AGC0KE AND CAC2 REAGENT
READ(NI, 100) pens, PCCAC2
PCMG = PC.1G / 100.
PCCAC2 = Pi;CAC2 / 100.
ACCEPT THE TYPICAL COSl/NT FOB 1I0T.1ETAL, AND THE TYPICAL
TEHPERATURE DROP FROM RUNNER TO BOF
READ(NI,100) CSTHH, STDTHP
FOR THE INPUT STATE TO THIS STAGE, READ THE BOTTOM, NUHBEE,
AND INCR. FOH THE M VAIIIACLES: HMWTIN, SIN, SILIN, TMPIN(DEG F).
READ(NI,102) DOUNO, NOO, DELO
HEAD(NI,ia2) DOUNP, NOP, DELP
READ(NI,102) DOWNQ, NOQ, DELQ
READ(HI,102) DOWNR, NOR, CELR
LENGTH = NOO NOP HOC NOB

U5
c
102

90

c
c
c

FORMAT(F10.3, 110, F10.3J

FOR THE OUTPUT STATE FhCK THIS STAGE, READ THE POSSIBLE
VALUES FOR TH2 4 VAHIALES: HaWTOT
SOUT, SILOUT, TMPOUT
PEAO(NI,102) DOUNS, KOS, DELS
READ(NI, 102) DOW NT, N07, DELT
KEAD(KI, 102) OOWNU, NCU, DELU
READ(NI,102) DUU N V, NOV, DELV

95
INITIALIZE THE QTABLE TO ALL flNEINITE
100

105

110

150
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

DO 150 1=1,350
DO 150 J = 1,20
QT.\DLE(I,J) = +20000.
CONTINUE
STANDARD CASlJ COST CALCULATION **
CALCULATE THE REAGENT COST FOR THE STANDARD CASE MAGCOKE
BEDUCTIOH OF S FIIOH .03 10 .01b. TllEll CALCULATE THE CONSTANT
COST VALUE FOH EACH Of THE VARIOUS OPTIONS. IHE VALUES
PREFIXED flTIi "Z" ARE IK CTDER THE VALUES FOu; REFl-ACIOHY
(EG DELLS, OH LANCE, OE STIRRER), REFR LABOR, STERL PARTS, ELEC
TRICITY, N2, MAINTENANCE, SLAG DISPOSAL, THERMOCOUPLES, LABOR,
DEPRECIATION, ANE LADLE LINING LOSS.
THESE Z VALUES ARE THEN
MULTIPLIED TIMES THE MAGCCKE C.OST FOR THE STANDARD CASE TO YIELD
THF. CONSTANT COST FIGURE/TON HOTMETAL THAT IS LATER ADDED TO

288

PHOGHAH EXIDES
115

C
C
C

REAGENT COST FOP EACH CtTICH TO FINALLY YIELD TOTAL STAGE

HETUHN FOR EACH Oi THE Id OPTIONS.
PDflGC = (ALOG (.Oas/.OIB)) / (1.0 0.45)
DOL'.GC = PDSGC 0.93

120

C
ZHGCl = 11. + 6.3 +1.3 tO.O *0.0 +0.0 + 1.3 +0.25+ 7.2H8.9+ 0.0
ZHUC2 = 15.0+7.0 +2.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +2.0+ 0.3+a-0+ia.9+ 0.0
ZCACNJ = 7.9+5.2+11.3 +0.06+0.19+6.25 +2.5+0.25+7.2+37.8+ 7.0
ZCACKR = 2.6+1.3+0.13 +0.38+0.01+12.5 +2.5+0.25+7.2+41.U+13.9
ZCAONJ = 7.9+5.2+11.3 +0.06+0.19+6.25 +2.5+0.25+7.2+37.8+ 7.0

125

130

C
C
C
C
C

ADD KACTOIiEU CHARGES AS PEKCENI OF DOLLARS F0(< HAGCOKE

REAGENT FOli STANDARD CASE, ANC THE COST CHARGED FOE THE
HOT C.ETAL LOST DY SPLASHING ETC. WHICH HONS FROM .08 TO .20:
PLGICS
PLG2CS
CACNJC
CACKHC
CAONJC

135

=
=
=
=
=

((Z.1GC1
((ZNGC2
((ZCACNJ
((ZCACKR
((ZCAONJ

D0L.1GCJ
DOLHGC)
COLSGC)
DOLMGC)
BQLHGC)

+
+
+
+
+

(CSTHS
(CSTHd
(CSTHfl
(CSTHIl
(CSTH.1

.10)) /
* .20)) /
.12)) /
.12)) /
.Ob)) /

100.
100.
100.
100.
100.

C
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

c LARGE DO-LOOP DELOW **

c*************************************************

1U0

C
C
C
C
C

PEtFOhM TUB lb CALCULATIONS OF FINAL OUTPUT VAHIADLE

VALUES PEH ROW, AND COol FOB EACH GIVEN CASE FOE 1 TON
HOT METAL. AT T/IE BOTIOK CF THIS DO-LCOP, THE COSI IS
CONVEIITED TO THAT EEQD FOB THE WTHS ACTUALLY INPUT.

lus

SIN = DOHNP - DELP

DO mo IXS = 1,N0P
SIN = SIN + DELP
SILIN = DOUNO - DELQ
DO i<70 IXSIL =1,H0Q
SILIN = SILIN + DELQ
TflPIN = DOWKB - DELH
CO H70 IXTflP = 1,M0B
TflPIN = THPIN + DELH

150

155

C
C
50
6

160

C
c
c
C
C

165
C
C
C
170

WHITE(NO,50) SIN, SILIN, T.IPIN

FOnf!AT(lX,"INPUT SULPHOH =",F10.3," INPUT SILICON ="
,F10.3, " ISPUI TEHPEHATUKE = ",F10.3)

(1) FOa NO EXT.DES ****

FOR NO EXT DES CALC TOTAL COST AND OUTPUT STATE.
SOUT(l) = SIN
SILOUT(I) = SILIN
TMPOUT(I) = THPIS - STDTUP
TOTC(1) = 0.0
(2) FOR ONE PLUNGE MAGCOKE *+
IlEACTION RATE CONSTANT FOR MAGCOKE PLUNGING = CONdGC
CONflGC = 1.0
RATIO = EXP(COi!'lGC MT1PLG PCtlG)

289

PROURAM EXTDE3
S0UV(2) = SIN / IIATIO
S1L0UT(4 = SILIN
TnP()UT<2) = THPIH - STDTHP - 30-0
10TC(2) = (UTIPLG CSI.IGC) PLG1CS

175

(3) KOh TUO PLUHGE HAGCCKE *<

SA.IE HEACTIOH HATE COHSTAIIT
HATIO = iXP (CCKMGC UT2PLG PCMO)
SOUT (3) = SIN / HATIO
SILOUT(J) = SILIH
T.1P0UT(3) = IMPIB - STDTHP - 50,0
T0TC(3) = (MT2PLG CST.1GC) PI,G2CS

180

185

190

195

- 8) CAC2 INJECTION
REACTION HATE CONSTANT = CONIKJ
CONINJ = 0.17
DO 200 1=1,5
RATIO = EXPICONIKJ WT(1,I) * PCCAC2)
S0UT(I3) = SIN / BAIIC
SIL0UT(It3) = SILIN
TIME = 2.70 0.658 WT(1,I)
T.1PL0S = U.O TINE
TnPOOT(It3) = TdPIN - STDTHP - TMPLOS
T0TC(It3) - (UT{1,I) CSTCAC) t CACNJC
CONTINUE
200

C
c
c

200

205

210

215

220

225

(9 - 13) KR STIR OF CAC2 *

REACT IO;l FATE CONSTANT = CONKB
COHKH = 0.50
DO 300 1 = 1,5
RATIO = EXP(COKKn HT(2,I) PCCAC2)
SOaT(lfa) = SIN / RATIO
SlI.0UT(I + 3) = SILIN
TIME = 13.08 * 5.77 WT(2,I)
TMPLOS = 1.3 TIBE
TKPOUT(1+8) = TMPIN - STDTHP - TMPLOS
T01C(I + 3) = {WI(2,I) CSTCAC) + CACKHC
300
CONTINUE
C
(11 - 18) LIME INJECTION #
c
REACTION RATE CONSTANT = COHLIH
c
CONLin = 0.018
DO UOO 1=1,5
RATIO = EXP(CCKLIH HT(3,I))
SOUT(1 + 13) = SIN / RATIO
SIL0UT(I + 13) = SILIN
TMPOUlJI + 13) = TMPIN - STDTHP - aO.O
T0TC(I + 13) = (WT(3,I) CSTLIH) + CAOHJC
CONriliUE
400
C '
C
NOW THAT THE 3 ROWS OF SOUT, SILOUT, THPGUl, ARE
C
KNO'JN, ENTER DO-LCOP OVER THE POSSIDLE VALUES OF
C
HMWTIN AND PUT COSTS AND TRANSFOHHATIONS TO
C
OTADLE AND ITABLE RESPECTIVELY
c
]!aUTIN = DOUHO-DELO
DO &0 IXaT=1, NOO

HI1WTIH=HK1IT1N DELO
DEfIHE HOH INDEX (IXNDX) KNOWING IXS, IXSIL, IXTilP,
ANU IXWT
IERR=0
CALL DEFINE (HOO, HOP,lICQ, HOH,IXT,IXS,IXSIL,IXTHP,
IXNDX,lERtJ
IF (lEKfi.EO. 1) (30 TO 160
EHTEIi A DOLOOP OVEB TUF 18 COLUMNS FOI< THIS SINGLE
DOW AND FIND THE PfiOPER LOCATIONS IN WHICH TO ENTEB
THE COST PEH TON OF STEEL (HOT PEtt TON OP HOTflETAL),
AND THE INDEX OP THE OUTPUT VECTOR WHICH IS ALSO
DEFINED.
DOI4SO J = 1, 18
FIND lYS KNOWING SOOT, DOHNT, HOT, DELT
IEBH=0
SDUHHY = SOUT (J)
IF(SDU!1I17 .LT. UOWNT) SDUflMT = DOWNT
CALL H!ID(SDUilMY,DCWKT, NOT, DELT, lYS, lERB)
IF (lERR .EQ. 1 ) GO TO 150
FIND lYSIL
IEKH=0
CALL FIND(SILOUT(J) ,BOWHU ,HOU ,DELU ,lYSIL,lERB)
IF (ISFfe. EU. 1) GO TO 150
FIND lYTM?
lKl!n =0
CALL FIHD(TMPOUT(J) ,DCW::V ,HOV,DELV,IYTP,lERB)
IF (IliKH. Eg. 1) GO TO 150
FIND lYiJT
lEHfl=0
CALL FIND (UMWTia, DCWKS, NOS, DELS, lYWT, lERR)
IF(IEKH .El!. 1) GO TO 150
HOW DEFINE THE INDEX OF THE OUTPUT VECTOK FOB THIS
GIVEN now AND COLUMN AND EUTEB IT IN ITAbLE
IEPn =0
CALL DEFINE (HOS, NOT, HOU, NOV, lYBT, lYS, lYSIL,
lYTMP, lYNDX, lEFR)
IF (lEfiH .EQ. 1) GO TO 150
ITADLE (IXNDX,J)=IYNCX
(^TA3LE(IX!IDX,J) = TOTC(J) UHWTIH
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
OUTPUT
U R i r K (NO, 5 0 0 )
(SOU!(I),1=1,18)
FORM AT(18(IX, F6.),//)
WRITE(NO,5 0 0 ) (SILOUT(I) ,1=1,18)
WniTE(NO,600) (T.iroUT(l),1=1,18)

291

PhOGHAn EXTDES

290

600
C
C
1470
C

FOn!lAT(18(1X,F6. 1),//)
l.'HITE(NO,50U) (TOTC(I),1= 1,18)
CONTINUE
DO 700 1=1,LENGTH
kKITE(KG,500J (LIABLE(I,J),J= 1,18)

295

300

700
C
695.
800
C
C
C
C

305
905
900
C
c
310

315

1005
1000
C
C

CONTINUE
DO nOO 1=1,LENGTH
-niTE(NO,6y5) (ITABLE (I,J) ,J=1,18)
F0H.fAT(lb(lX,I5),//)
CCNTIK'JE
OUTPUT TO TAPE PCH DP BUS (TAPE!)
NOTE THAT TAPE1 MU^T DE SPECIFIED ON HEADING
DO 900 I = 1,LENGTH
MmTE(1,905) (QTADLE(I,J) ,J=1,18)
KOR!1AT(10F10.3)
COKTINDE
DO 1000 1=1,LENGTH
WBITE(1,1005) (ITABLE(I,J) ,J=1,18)
F0R.1AT( 10110)
CONTINUE
STOP
END

APPENDIX G

PROGRAM LISTINGEOF.TAB

292

293

PBOGKAn BOF
1

PnOGHA.I U0F(IHPU1,CUTFUT,TAPE5=INPUT,1AP6 = CUTPUT)

Pnc. J I I A .I L' J F(IHPUI , C U ; PUT,TAPE 1 , 1 AP 5 =1NPUT,TAPE6=0UTPUT)
IMPLICIT nEAL{H)
REAL MNSCPF
INlECiER HliCHPS.ONE
Di:itKSION 11,1 (7).SCKAF(7),FSCUAP(2,7) ,STEEL(7)
DIHEN310N DSCASE(7j, BSC0ST(7), QTADLE(350)
II = 5

10 = 6

ONE = 1

10

C
C
C
C

7 VALUES IN HN AHC STEEL - 1=SI, 2=HN, 3=C, =PHOS,

5=SULP1IUR, 6=TE3P DEC P, 7=ST UT LD.

15
1500
1502
20

25

30

35

dO

1)5

50

1503
C
C
C
C
C

BEAD(II,1500) DSCOST
WHERE COST IS PBB UNIT Of THE HATL. E<J TON
OF SCBAP OB SCI OF 02
1 = HK,2=SCB,3=0EE,t= H n ,5=SPH,6=02,7=FBnN
IHL = HL

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

READ(II,1500) HB
READ(II,1500) STEEL
FOHMAT(7F10.0)
READ(II,1502) NSCBPS
F0R.'1AT(I2)
UEAD(II,1500) SCRAP
RAU(II,1500) (FSCRAP(1,I) ,I=1,7J
BEAD(II, 1500) (FSCBAP(2,I) ,1=1,7)
HEAD(II,1500) POXYC2,T02,OXYFLO,FDLCSS,TCG,BC02,UL
BEAD(II,1500)UB.TS,XSFEO,FV23HS,PORFEO,PCSIOR,OBEFRC
HAD(1I,1500) A, DELI, EPS
hEAD(II,1500) DSCHTP,CONSTH, DOMNIIR,USHTSZ,DSPBOF,STLCST
READ{II,1503) TFC
F0B.1AT(E10.4)
TFC IS THE TOTAL FIXED COST IH $/UEEK FOR A
DEFINED DASE OPEr.ATINU SCHEDULE. (SEE COST
CHAPTER) - VALUE FOR BASE CASE IN STU3Y IS
2.M9a3E6 i/KEEK

HEAD VALUES
VARIABLES S=
T=
U=
V=

150')
C

OF PARAfiEIEBS THAT GIVE RANGE FOB INPUT

HtiWT TONS/TON STEEL EG .72 TO .82
HnS IN PERCENT EG .020 TO .060
HBSI IN PERCENT EG 0.9 TO 1.2
HtlTtlP IK CtG F EG 2U00 TO 2500

REAO(II,150)
HEAD(II, 150)
PEAD(1I, 150it)
READ(1I, 160U)
FOBMAT(F10.3,

DCUNS, HANYS,
DOHXT, (lANYT,
DCVNU, RANYU,
DOWNV, (tASVV,
110, F10.3)

WIDTHS
WIDTH!
WIOTHU
HIDTBV

LENGTH = HANYS HANYI * HAMYU MANYV

55

C
C
C

INITIALIZE THE CTAELE TC'ALL INFINITE

DO 101 1=1,350
l!TAULE(I) = +20000.

294

PltOGBA.I BOF

65

101
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C

CONTINUE
INITIALIZE
BE SET. THE
AND TIIEH ITS
IHUBX OF THE
COKRESPOND.

THE THREE INPUT VAKIABLE VALUES THAT CAN

FOUETH (HKWT) IS DfTEKMIHED BY THE PliOGRAK
INDEX IS FOUND. AFTER THAT POINT, THE
LINE IS KtlOUH TO UUICH ALL FCUB VAHIAULES

Ha(5) = DOWNT - HIDTHT

DO 2000 IXS = 1,rtAHYT
ni1(5) = HH(5) WICTHT
H!l(1) = DCkNU DO 2000 IXSIL =
Hfl(1) = HH(1J +
HK(6) =
DO 2000
Ha(6) =

70

75

MIDTHO
l.MANYU
UIDTHU
DOWNV-HIDTHV
IXTHP = I.MAHYV
HM(6) f WIDTUV

C
c
80

85

90

2001
C
C
2002
C
200i<
C
2006
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

UBITE{IO,2002) STEEL
F0R;1AT(1X,"STEEL",7(FID. 3,2X))
WniTE(IO,200U) HH
F0B.1AT(IX,"H.1
7(F10.3,2X))
t;HITE(IO,2006) SCRAP
FORM AT(IX,"SCRAP",7(FIO.3,2X))

INITIALIZE HMS VALUE - IF IT IS LT THE RANGE FOB

APPHOPRIATS EOTNS, SET IT AT THE LCK VALUE AND TUB
RESULTS LATER SHOULD CODE OUT OKAY.
HHS = Hfl(5)
IF(HnS .LT. 0.014) HNS = 0.01U

95

100

WRITE(10,2001) HM{5), HM(1), HM(6)

F0n,1AT(//,"SHLP, SIL, TEHPF:", 3F10.3)

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

105
901
C
C
110
C
903

CALCULATE TD SULPHUR AND H FROH GILLUH EtTNS. USE THE CALCULATED

UN AS THE FINISH ANALYSIS. USE THE CALC. SULPHUR TO CHECK
AGAINST THE INPUT STEEL S SPEC: IF THE 2 DIFFEH UY > 20:.
PRINT A NOTICE.
USE THE INPUT STEEL S TO INIIIALIZE THE
BASICITY RATIO USING HC NAMAHA EOTK.
USING P.37 GILLU.1 - LIHITS OH THIS UNKNOWN
ETDS = 0.0077 (0.2aHr.(5)) (O.OOlOB / HH(2))
SDIFF = ABS((STEEL(5) - ETDS) / SIL{5))
IF(SDIFF.GT.0.2) UKITE (10,90 1)
F0RKAT(" EXPECTED IDS AND INPUT IDS DIFFEH BY >20:")
USING P.1I3 GILLUn - LIHITS .30 TO .80 HH HN
ETDflN = HH(2) / ((.535HM (2)) + 1.5137)
IF(E7DnN .LT. 0.05) ETD.IN's 0.05
STEEL(2) = ETDHN
URITE(IO,903) ETDKH
FORilAT(" EXPECTED TURNDOWN MANGANESE = ",F7.3)

295

PBOGHAH BOF
115

120

C
C
C

INVEilTlllG DEP AKU IHDEP VAHIABLES - P7o2 HCKAMAHA FIG 1

ALSO SAME AS V-58 EA7THLLE - TO CALC bilAIlG FROM BEQ S
E5RAT = STLEL(5) / {(0.7 1 OSiib STEF,L (5))-7. 7aablJE - 3 J
CHECK LIMITS ON UASICITY BATIO - IF CALCULATED EUHAT IS
GREATEH THAN THE UPPER U.2 LIKII OB LESJ THAN THE
LOWER 2.1 LIMIT, SET THE B-UATIO AT THAT CORRECT LIMIT

C
C
C

C
IF{EBPAT -GT. a.2) EBBAT = h.2
1F(EURAT .LT. 2.1) tERAT = 2.1
BS = EDRAT

125
C
C
905

UR1TE(IO,905) EBRAT
FOHMATC INITIALIZED E-BATIO = ",F7.3)

C
130

C
C
C

CHECK LIMITS MAKE SURE THAT IHDEPENDENT VARIABLES ABE

WITHIN THE AREA OF THE EMPIRICAL CURVE FIT

913
135
915

IIJO

Ilt5

150

155

160

165

170

917
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

IF(HM(2).GT. O.QO .OB. MH(2).LT. 0.3U) WRITE(10,913)

FORHATC HOT METAL MH OUT OF APPKOl'RIATE BANGE FOB EQTN")
IF(HM(5).GT. 0.050 .OB. HH(5).LT. 0.01K) WRITE(10,915)
F0SMAT(" HOT METAL S. CUT OF APFROPHIATE RANGE FuR EQTK")
IF(STEEL(5).GT. 0.026 .OB. STEEL(5).LT. 0.010) VI.ITE(10,91 7 )
FORMATC STEEL SULPHUR SPEC COT CF APPROPRIATE RANGE")
USING 0.010 FOR STEELS AND 0.01U ON HMS fOB LIMITS OF
APPLICIBILITlf FOB GILLUM EQTMS - SEE AbOVE CHECKS
(SEE P.3S GlLLUn FOF SATA ON WHICH THE ECTNS ARE
BASED.) XT SHOULD EE OKAY TO EXTRAPOLATE THESE ON
DOWN TO VALUES SHOWS AEOVE AS THE LIMITS TO THE RANGES.

WTORE=0.
15 WTSCPF=0.
WFESCF=0.
WTSCP=SCRAP(7) +FSCBAP(1,7) FSCBAP (2,7)
IF(NSCRPS .EQ. 1) GO TO m
10 FJC17=FSCRA?(1,7)
FSC27=FSCRAP{2,7)
WTSCPP=FSC17tFSC27
SISCPF= (FSCRAP( 1, 1)FSC17+ FSCaAP(2,1)FSC27)/WTSCPF
HNSCPF= (FSCBAP(1,2)FSC17+ FSCBAP(2,2) FSC27)/WTSCPF
CSCPF= (FSCr.AP(1,J) fSC17+FSCRAP(2,3)FSC27)/WTSCPF
P3CPF= (FSCRAP(l,a) FSC17+FSCi<AP(2,i4)FSC27)/WTSCPF
SSCPF=(tSCRAP(l ,5) FSC17 + FSCRAP(2,5) FSC27)/WTSCPF
IF(NSCHPS.EU.3)G0 TO 21
rsCPF = FSCHAP(l,6)
FESCPF=100.-(FSCRAF(1 ,1)FSCBAP(1,2)FSCBAP(1,3)
IFSCBAP(1,4)VSCRAP(1,5))
GO TO 23
21 rsCPF= (FSCnAP(l,6)*FSC17 + FSCHAP(2,C)FSC27)/WTSCPF
FSCPF=100.-(SISCPFnNSCFF>C3CPF<-PSCPfSSCPF)
23 WfESCF=(WTSCPFFESCPF)/100,
GO TC 25
21 TSCPF=SCnAP(6)
25 WTHM=HM(7)
30 UTSCP1=SCRAP(7)
NCGSI= {WTHMHn( 1) tWTSCP 1SCKAP(1) tSISCPFWTSCPF)/2806.

296

POOCBAH OOP

175

!ICC ;MN = (WTIIHLL.I(2) WTSCP1SC[(AP(2)HNSCPF*WTSCPF)/SMGU.

TIL-I:C= (UTIINIIM(3)UTSCP1*SCF.AP(3)CSLPFW7SCPFJ/L/!01.
KC(;P= (WTII:I*IL.I(U) LLTDCPL*SCLIAP (T)PSCPFWTACPF)/J098.
WKTSCP=WFT';:CF*RSCPL*(100.-(SCHAP (I) +SCHAP (2) TSCHAPIJ)
U3CNAP(<4) TSCLLAPTJ)))/100.

WlU'.Kt;= (100.-FDLOSS)/100.i:3HH (100.- (HK (1) lin(2)

ItllH (3) liK (M) filrt (5) J )/100.
180

KSF JO3=0.
NSFEO=0.
UO OFi;= WTOHE
VFi;NET=WHSFEfWFESCP + IOnEPORFEO55.85/71 05.WTOUE*(100.-

IPOPFEO-FCSlOh)!11.7/15S70.-KSFhO55.85-NSF203111.7
iiUr. = 10U.*l.'FENET/(100.- (STEEL(I) tSTEEL(2)STEIiL(J)
185

lSrEr:L(i4)SrEEL(5)))

KDr'.SI = uaMSTl.EL(1)/2a06.
NUK.tN=VD.1STEEL(2)/5iJ9').
N3KC=I/DMSTEZL(3)/1201.

190

195

200

205

210

NUKP=UDH*aTESL {") /3 098.

NS3I02=NC;i;Sl-HD.1SI
K3nH0=NCf!MN-HBrtH
MSP205= (llCGP-aBNP)/2.
KCCG=1ICGC-NU!1C
NSCAO= (HSSIO2-PCSIOhWTOIK/6006.) BH
i;TLIK=I;SCAO5608./A
NSCAO=NSCAOf (WTLIHE*(lOO.-A)/100.) (BH/(BR1.))/56.08
NAS10T=N3CA0/Ba
N.SFEOX=(IISSIOTf NSflNOtNSP205 + KSCA0)XSFEO/(1.-XSF0)
Q:ibFEO=NSFEO
KSFE0=NSFE0XFV23RS/(FV23RS*1.)
KSF203=NSPE0X-NSFE0
WrCflE=Ohf hC^KTLIME
UTSLAG = NS3IOT50.06* NSKKC70.9')+ KSP205 lUI.96*MSfE0
171.85fNSF2OJ159.7+NSCAO56.0A
IF (ABS(ORS-WTORE).LI.DELI)GO TO <5
GO TO TO
1)5 IF (ADS{UH3FEO-!ISFEO).LT.l)EI."I/71.85) GO TO 50
GO TO UO
50 N0XY0=NSSI022.KSMHOHSP2055.NSFEO*KCCG(l.+2.
1BC02)/(1.+ RC02) -WTCKEFCEFEC/7 185.-WT0FE(100.-POHFEO2PCSI0B) *3./159 70.3.HSF2O3H.1FEfDLOSS/(100.-FDL0SS)/55
3.85

scFox=Noxyo/2.37900./poxyo2
215

BL0TI.1=SCF0X/0XYFL0
N2CS=HSSI0T

IF(HSCAO.GT.2.MSS10T3.HSP205)GO TO 80
H2CS=(NSCAO-3.NSP205)/2.
NHNSl = HSS10r-N2CS
IF (KttWSl.C.T. liSHIIO) GO TO 70
220

KFE2sr=0.

GO TO 90
70 NFf2SI=NSSIOT-N2CS-NSHNO
NMNSI=NSHNO
GO TO 90
225

80 !mNSI=0.
NFE2Sr=0.
90 H1IK= (. ianllM (6)eS.)WHHFE(6.7HI1 (6)-3')150.)HSSI02
1+(11.IIN(6)2900.) NSMNO+(H. 5im(6)-92500.) liSP20b2.

297

PROUUAH OOF
2*(5.23II.>!(()) H0020.)NCCG
HS= (t75. (TJ-2a20.).3)* VTSLAG-10 16000. NS E205-114flOO.
1(N:>FEOtWH.1FKFULOSS/lU0-/55.85-WTOKi;*l'Ont EO/713b.)
2-3'i9700.*NSJ10J-1C,5600.NSIlNO-53b40. *N2C.S-10600.
'H fE 23 1-3531to.(Hsi'2o3-wioitE (1004-PORFf:o-lVSIOFJ/15970.)
HCG=(23^00. t(TCG-3000.) b.5-47b00.) NCCG/(1. 4-HC02J
U (37400.(rcc:-3000.) 14. 4-16y0U0)JICC0HCO2/(1.+ KC02)
nr.T= (. IA4STI:EL(B) +63.) (VUM-UTSCP)
H02=7.(NOXYO/2.)(102-77.)
IISCBAP= im.1-liyT-ns-HCG-IIL-ll02
TSC=(SCHAP(7)SCHAP(6)MTSCPFTSCPF)/(SCHAP(7) tUTSCPF)
wrscp= HSCHAP/(. 104(STEFL (6)-TSC) +63.14.2)
SCHAP(7)= JTSCP-WTSCPF
IF(ADS(KD.1-S i EEL(7)),LT. EPS)GO TO 100
COKFAC=STE EL(7)/W Bfl
HTUM = UTliM*COHFAC
HM (7)=WTH.1
SCKAP(7)=(SCUAP(7)VllSCPi) C0BF&C-TSCPF
GO TO 30
100 TVSCP=SCnAP(7)/2000.
TSCP=UTSCP/2000.
THMCG=IIK(7)/2000.
TQI(E=UTOhS/2000.
TLlf1E=WXLIHi:/2000.
P3C = 100.WTSCP/(WTSCP*WTnM)

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

C *****************<*****,
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c

AT THIS POIirr, THE ENESG* !iC KASS UALAHCES HAVE COHVERGED.

PhOCtEC TO CALCULAT THE iiESULPiluniZlNG ADILITT OF THE
SLAG THAT IS FOfiBtE ANC MAKE APPEOPIiIATE CHECKS. IF THE
CHECKS AKE CKAK, FIIXNI CUT RESULTS AND CONTINUE UITH THE
NEXT INPUT. IF THE CHECKS ARE IN VIOLATION ( STEEL S. OUT OP
SPEC, D-RATIO OUISIDE THE 2.0 TO 4.0 RANGE, OR SLAG WEIGHT
IS laPPOPEB) THEN HAKE COBHECTION AND GO BACK TO STHT 30.
SULPHUR RE.IOVED PER TON OF BURNT LIME = SPTBL
SnTBL = F(B-RATIO)
P. 46 GILLUN
SBTBL = ((LB.S(Ha) tLE.S(SCR))-LD.S(STL)) / TONS BL
LB.S(nB)+LB.S(SCn)-(SRTBLTONS BL) = LB.S(SIL)
.01(:S(HH))(LD.HH).01 (:3(SCR))(LB.SCR)"(Sf.TBL)(TONS BL) =
.01 (:S(STL))(LU.STL)
:S(STL) = [(:S(Hn))(LB.IlM)*(;S(SCf.)) {LB.SCR)-IOO(SRIBL)(TONS BL)]
/ LB. STL

1
280

285

C
C
C
C

SHMLB = IIB(5) IIM(7)

SSCHLB = (FSCr.AP{ l ,5)*FSCnAP( 1 ,7)) v{FSCHAP{2,5)fSCHAP{2,7))
(SCRAP (5)'SCRAP(7))
SfiTDL = 0.6545 (ER
1.2871)
PCSSTL = {SH!lLDfSSCKLK-(100.)(SRTEL) (TLIME)) /STEEL(7)
SEE IF THIS CHECKS UITII PERCEKT DESULPHU KIZATIOH - P.46 GILLOB
Pas = F(D-RATIO)
PDS = ((:S(HK) - ;S(STL)) / :S(HM)) 100

298

paoSHAH DOF
C
C

:S(HM) - ;S(STL) =
0.01 PDS
:S(STI,) = :S(im) (1.0 - (0.01)(PDU))

C
PDS = 3K / ((-0.02926 BR) 0.1976)
PCSST2 = IIH(5) (1.0 - (0.01)(PDS))

290

295

300

305

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

SEE IF THIS CHECKS UIIH THE SULPIlUK PAETITION EATIO

FUNLTlUi) ON P. 1*6 - GILLUM
SULPllUn PARTITION EAIIO = SRATIO
ShATIO = F(E-RATIO)
SRATIO = [;S(SLAG)] / [:S(STEEL)]
:S(SLAG) = SHATIO * ;S(STEEL)
SULPHUR IH = S.IH H S.IH SCRAP + b.IN LIME
=.01(:S (IIH)) (WT. IIH) t.OI(:S(SCR))(UT.SCR)
.01(:S(LinE)l (WT.LIHE)
SULPUUR OUT = S.IN STEEL + S.IN SLAG
= .01(;S(STL))(KT.STL) .01(:S(SLAG))(HT.SLAG)
= .01(:S(STL))(MI.STL) .01 (SHATIO
:S(STL))(UT.SLAG)
:S(STL) = [:S(H)WT.HH :S (SCR)UT.SCH] /
[WT.SIL (SKATIOHr.SLAG) J
SRATIO = 13-671 - (25.6906 / DR)
PCSST3 = (SHMLB + SSCfiLB)/(STEEL(7) (S RATIOUTSLAG))

310

315

C
C
C
C
C
951

PRIST OUT THE THREE SULPHUR VALUES AND TAKE A WEIGHTED

AVERAGE TO REPRESENT THE SYSTEB RESPONSE
WRITB(I0,951) PCSSTL,PCSST2,PCSST3
FCR(1AT(" THE THREE 'ULPHUR VALUES ARE: 3(3X ,F7.))
PCSSTL = ((2.0PCSSTL) (PCSST2) (2.0PCSST3))/5.

C
C
C

CHECK TO SEE IF SULPHUR IS WITHIN BOUNDS

320
953
1
325

330

335

3i0

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

STELUP = STEEL(5) t 0.0001

STELDN = STEEL(5) - 0.0001
IF(PCSSTL .LE. STELUP .AND. PCSSTL .GE. STELDN)
GO TO 971
OTHEKVIISE A CORRECTION RUST BE BADE.
CALCULATE THE PERCEHTAGE THAT THE PREDICTED SULPHUR IS OVER/
UNDER THE SPEC, AND INCREASE/DECREASE THE U-BATIO BY THAT
SAME PERCENTAGE OF THE DISTANCE TOWAKD THE APPROPRIATE BOUND.
THEN HAKE CHECKS AND GO BACK TC STATEHEST 30 TO ALLO'il THE
tlASS AND ENERGY BALANCES TO CONVERGE AGAIN.
EG. IF S. = 0.030 WHEN IT SHOULD UE 0.025, THEN ITS OVER
BY 20:. IF THE B-RATIO liAS 3.0, THEN 20: OF THE
DISTAHCE TO THE BCUllC (U.O) IS 0.2 SO THY HEW
BASICITY RATIO OF 3.2
ASSIGN UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS TO POSSIBLE B-RATIU
UPBND = 4.22
BNDLOW = 2.08
PRCNT = (PCSSTL - STEEL{5)) / STEEL{5)

299

PROGRAR OOF

355

961
963
C
C
96a
C
C
C
C
C
C

IF(PHCHT .GT. 0.0) GO TO 961

UBDELi = H - EIIDLOW
GO TO 963
DIlDELT = UPlillD - tH
UH = DR (L'PCJ;LTFBCNT)
WRITE(10, 501) PSC,ISCP,TVSCP,lMBCG,TOiit:,TLinE,ULOTIB
WHITE{iC,9bM) Bh
FORMAT("
EH = ",F6.3)
IF APl'ROACllIKu B-RATIO LIMIT, PEIKIOUT THE PRUaLE.I, DUMP THE
PRESENT RESULTS, AND STOP. IF TIIE LIKIT IS OK, C0ST1NU2
BY CHECKING CN LIHE AMOUNT CHARGED AND IF THAT IS OK,
TUE.H RECYCLE BACK OP.
1F(ADS(uHCELT) .UT. 0.1) GO TO 966
URITE(IO,9t)5)

360

965
C
C

365

C
C

370

C
C
C
966

rOR.1AT(lX," APPROACHING BDATIO LIMIT ")

IF(PCS3TL .LT. STEEL(5)) GO TO 971

OTHERWISE - DUMPCUI
GO TO 2000
** < DU.tPOUT

375

C
C
C
C

EXPECTED BURNT LIME = EXPtL

EXPBL = F{110T EETAL SULPHUR) P.50

GILLUB

EXPBL = 1.0 / ((').977E-5) - (.00Umi3 HHS))

PCTLI.1 = ADS {(UTLIflE-EXPIiL) / EXPBL)
IF(PCTLI.1 .LT. 0.20) GO 10 30
OTHERWISE LIKE CHARGE AND THE EXPECTED LIME CHAbGE DO
NOT A.;REE. ISSUE UARKItiG AHC GG BACK UP.
UEITB(10,967) PCTLIH

967
380

FORMATC LIME CHARGE DOES HOT AGREE W/ EXPECTED 0Y:",F7.3)

GO TO 30

C
C

c *********************************
c ***********>>****************>**********

385

390

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
971

395
973
C

IF THE PROGRAM GETS IC THIS POINT, IT IS EITHER

DUMPING OH THE SULPHUR IS WITHIN RANGE OF SPEC.
THE FOLLOWING t PREDICTIONS ABE ALL GOOD DOWN TO .015S
AND UP TO .OtOS EXCEPT FCBCHG-TO-TAP TIME. THESE CAN
ALL DE CALC AT LIBITING O-Oia VALUE IF HKS IS LT THAN THAT
CALC EXPECTED BURNT LIME ADDITION P50 GILLUH
EXPBL = 1.0 / ((0.S77E-5) - ( .0001113 HHS))
PCTLIM = ABS( (HTLIME-EXPBL) / EXPBL)
IF(PCTLIfl .LT. 0.20) GO TO 975
WB1TE(I0,973)
FORMATC LIKE CHARGE / EXPECTED DO NOT AGREE")

300

PnOGBAH BOF
00

<405

C
C
975
C
C
C

110

C
C
C

CALCULATE FfllhO.MANGANESE ADDITIOK - P52 GILLUH

FEKll = 1.0 / 116.0716E-) - (2.63E-3 IIMS))
CALCULATE CHAnGE-TO-TAP TlflE - P53 GILLDB
CnCTAP = 1.0 / ((2.B59E-2) - { 0.05401b IIMS))
CALCULATE SPAR ADDITIOM - P50 GILLUH
SPAR = 1.0 / ((7.5263E-a) - (7.9a33E-3 HNS))

C
C
C

CONTIKUE AS DEFOHE MITU CCHVEBSICH TO TONS AND PftlNTOUT

415
TSLAG = llTSLAG/2000.
TFEMN = IEMN/2000.
TSPAH = SPAR/2000.
C
l20

TONSTL = STEEL{7) / 2000.

C
C
C
C

CALCULATE PROFIT PES ICN (NEGLECTING COST OF IIOTMETAL

VlirCIl IS HANDLED IN THE CP ALGUUITHM)

25
C
6
130

C
C
C

l35

C
C
C
C

CALL CALC(CHGTAP, CONSTM, COWNHH, TONSTL, STLCST, OXKFLO,

TFC, TSCP, TORE, TLIME, TSPAR, ELOTIH, TFIMN,
D3C0ST, DOLPTN)
CONVERT H(1 WT TO PER TOS EASIS:
HMPTON = THMCG / TONSTL

FIND THE INPUT STATE VARIABLE INDEX COBEESPONDING TO

THE HOT METAL PEH TON OF STEEL

lEnn = 0
CALL FIND(HMPTON, DOWNS, aANIS, KIDTHS, IXHtlWT, lERH)
IF(rERR .EQ. 1) GO TO 2000
IttO

C
C
C
C
C

Noa, KNOUING THE 3 INDICES OF THE INPUT STATE DO-LOOP

AND THE INDEX FOB THE HHWT STATE VABIADLt, DEFINE THE
INDEX OF THE BOH FOh THE QTABLE.

lt5
C

&0

C
C
C
C

lEBB = 0
CALL DEFINE(MAHirS,MANYT,HANlfU,MANYV,IXHMKT,IXS,IXSIL,
IXTKP, IXflDX, lERB)
IF(IEfiB -Eu- 1) GO TO 2000

FINALLY FILL IN THE RETURN TAELE AT THE APPROPRIATE BOB

WITH A POSITIVE VALUE SINCE IT IS A COST.
PTADLECIINDX) = DCLFTN

C
c

U55

HBIT2(I0,501)) PSC,TSCP,TVSCP,THMCG,TOBE.TLI HE,aLOTId

HHT{IO,y01) CHGIAP,TSLAG,TFHN,TSPAK,PCSSTL

301

PKOI:KAn SOF
JU1

FCn.'iATtlX," CHAkG-TC-TAP TIRii IN HIllUTES =",F7.3,

" ESU.IAIID WEIUIIT OF SLAU
" lEhRC.-.AtiSAHFSE ADDITION = ",F7.2,5X,
" SPAR AOlJlTlON = ",F7.2,/,
" THE ESIIMATEU LADLii SULFIIOIi =",F7.4)

B
2

3
4

460

500
501

465

470

475

480

485

490

495

500

505

510

FonflAT {2 ( A a ,A6,7FB.0/) ,12/3 (AB ,A6,7 FU.0/),10F7. 0/917.0)

FCnAT(lH1,"CllAKGE CALCULATION FOil A BASIC OXVJEN STEELHAKING
1 CCNTKOL SYSTEM,"//"- BASIC I'HOCESS
CC.MPOSI
JTIONS, IH EIG1IT PEIxCENI TEMPEEWEIGHT" / " aATEULALS
UHATBIX:",37X,"ATUHE,
IH LDS" / 22X ,2HSI,5X,2ll.1!i, 6X ,11IC, bX,1HP,6X,
5 "S
DEG. F (=EST.)"/ " HOT BETAL" / 2X,Ab,A6,F10.3,
6 4K7.J,F7.0,F9.Q,2H / "OSCBftP"/ 2X,A8,AC>,2H (,11,1H),
7 F6.3,4F7.3,F7.0,F9.0,2H )
502 F0F,.'lATt2X,A8,Afa,2H (, 11, 1H),F6.3,4F7.3,F7.0,F9.O)
503 FUfcM&T ("Oat.Q-(.S ETAL"/2X,AB,Ah,F 10. 3,F7.3,
,F6.3 ,2F7.3,F7.0,
1F9.0/"-: OXYGEN IN DLASI =",F6.2," ;
OXYGEN TEMPERATUH2 ="
2,Fb.0," OEG.F."/" FLUE DUST LOSS, AS",15X,
3"BL0UK 02 FLOW KATE =",F7.0," SCFH"/
4" PEIiCEHT OF HOT HETAL=",F6.2," ;
COMBUSTION GAS TEMP ="
5,F7.0," DEC. ?."/ C02/CC, CCHUUSI GAS =",F6.3,6X,
6"EilEBGY LOSS ESTIMATE =",I0," BTU/HT"/
7" SLAG MOLE FKACTION",15X,"SLAG BASICITY hATIO =",
BF5.1,"*"/" CF inuN OXIEES", 18X," TEMPEBATUBE OF SLAG ="
9,FG.O,'' DEG. F."/" EXPRESSED AS SEC
=",t5.2,7X,
1"SLAG FE0/FE203 BATIO =",F5.2/
2" PERCENT FKO IN QBE =",F6.2,
3" :
PERCENT SI02 IN ORE =",F5.2," :"/
4" OBE-TO-LIME RATIO
=",F6.2,6X,
5"PEnC2NT DAS IN LIME =",FC-2,'' ;
b" MAX ElillOB, CHARGE liT = ",fb.1,
7" Ln
MAX ERROR, METAL OUT =",Fb.O,'' POUNDS "/"O")
504 FORMAT(IX," RESULTS FOLLOW:"/
1" PERCENT SCBAP CHARGED =",f6.2,5X,
2" lUNS SCBAP CHARGED
2/
3" TONS VARIABLE SCRAP (1) =",F6.2,5X,
4"T0NS HOT METAL CHARGED =",F7.2/
5" TONS IRON QBE CHARGED =",F6.3,5X,
6" TCNS OF LIME CHiBGED
='',F7.3/
7" 02 BLOU TIME (MIN) =",f10.3, /)
WRITE(10,7623) IXNDX, DOLPTM
FOEMAT{1X,"*IXHDX ='',I3,5X,"*DCLFTM= ",F7.2)
7623
1000
FORMAT(110)
CONTINUE
2000
C
WRITE(10,3000) (QTABLE(I), 1=1,LENGTH)
3000
FORMAT(10(F8.3,2X),//)
C
C

4000
5000
C

DO 5000 I = 1,LENGTH
WBIRE(1,4000) QTAELE(I)
FOR;IAT(IX,IOFIO.3)
CONTINUE

c
STOP

END

302

SUUKOUriNE CALC

E
6
C
C

10

15

c
c
c
c
c
c
c

c
c

SUDnOUTIHU CALC(CIIGTAP, CCNSIM, DCWNIIK, ICNSTL, UTLCSI,

OXYPLO, TFC, TSCF, TCE, TLIME, TSPAR, DLOTIH, TFEHN,
aSCOST, DOLPTN)
THIS COST CALC. SUDROUTINE DETEHaiHES IIIE TOTAL BETUBB
PER TON OF STEEL FOR EACH COHBINATIOH OF INPDT
VARIAbLES. BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION IS ONE MhEKS
PRODUCTION FROM ONE FURNACE THAT IS OPERATING UNDER
THE GIVEN CONDITIONS. THE TOTAL FIXED COST PER WEEK
IS REUUIRED AS INPUT TO THIS SUBROUTINE, AS ARE COSTS
PER UNIT FOR RAU KATERIAL INPUTS.
DINSNSIOH USC0ST(7)
CALCULATE TINE AVAILABLE IN ONE WEEK TO HAKE STEEL
AVLHIN=7.2"<.60.
UOWN.nN-60. DCWNHR
AVL.1IH = AVLflIN-D0WNHN

20

CALCULATE TONS STEEL PRODUCED PER WEEK

25
TAPTAP=CHJTAPCCNSTn
HISPWK= AVLtllN/TAPTAP
TNSPUK=HTSPHK lONSTL
CALCULATE TOTAL VARIABLE CCST PER WEEK (DISREGARDING
HOTHETAL COST WHICH IS TAKEN CARE OF IN THE DP

30

ALGOaiTHtl) .

VCSC=TSCP DSCOST (2) * HTSPUK

VCOB=TOTTE CSCOST (3) HTSPHK
VCLM=THHE ESCOST (H) HISPHK
VCSP=TSPAR BSCOST (5) HTSPUK
VC02=DL0TIK BSCOSI (6) * HTSPWK OXYFLO
VCFn=IFEnN BSCOST (7) HTSPWK

35

40
VARCST=VCSC t VCOE VCLtl VCSP VC02 + VCFa

i5

c
c
c
c

CALC. TOTAL COSTS, BUT NEGLECTING HM COST

AND CONVEBT TO ONE STEEL ICN BASIS
COST=TFC*VARCST
DOLPTN=COST/TNSPWK
RETURN
END

APPENDIX H
PROGRAM LISTINGDP.CDC

303

304

10

15

20

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
c
*************
C

DYNAMIC-PECOiBAflMING

c
c
c
c

****>************

C
THIS PKOGHAtl TAKES ISPJT FEOH TABLES COBEESPOMDIHiJ TO THE FIVE STAGES
C CONSIDEREO IN THE OISSERTATIOi BY S. D. EHEIiSOli - 197U - UNIV. OF ARIZONA
C iHD FINDS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE 1I0UT2 THRU THE SinaLATION MODEL OF AN INTEGRATED
C JTEEL PLANT USING DYNAMIC PECGRAH;iING. THE BASIS ALGORITHM FOLLOWS:
C
C
1) READ IN VALUES OF VililABiSS A - V
C
2) SET STAGE POINTER TO 2
C
3) FIND BEST VALUE IN IHIS STAGE
C
4) ADD ONE TO STAGE POINTER
C
5) RF.PEAT FOB STAGES 3, 4, 5
C
6) THEN FOLLOW THE XS FROM STAGE 5 TO STAGE 1
C
TO FIND BEST RESULTS.
C
7) PniNT RESULTS
C
C
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCLCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

25
PR03PAM DP<TAPE1.INPUT, 0UTP3T, TAPE21 = INPUT, rAPE5 = OUTPUT)
INTECEK X, Y, STIGE, TA:,(350), OPTI01U20), RUM, AKSI
LOGICAL EXTDES
DIKSKSIOK X(4), Y(4), TiBLE(-".50, 18), VALUES(22, 3)
DIMENSIOH ALPHA(J50), D,.TA(3:0,18) , IGAHMA(350,1 8)
DINEKSION DELTA(350,18)
DIUSNSION STABS(4, 350, 3), 50 OF VL(22)

30

35

40

C
C
C

READ IH THE DATE AND BU:< NUHI^EB

CALL nATE (IDATE)
FEAD(21, 2) RON
FORMAT(I'2)

2
C
C
C

BEAD IH THE A - V VARIABLES

45

5
50

CALL IH VAL(NO OF VL, X. I, VALUES)

CONTINUE
CALL PR0C2S(EXTDES)
CALL IN TADr{ ALPHA, Y(1), 1)
DO 10 STAGE = 2, 4
aSTAGE = STAGE - 1
CALL DEST(ALPHA, Y(HjTAGE), X (STAGE), Y(STAGE), BETA, IGAHHA,
DELTA, STARS, STAGE, EXTDES)

C
ANSI = Y(STAGE)
C
C
C

55
II

SET ALPHA OF NEXT STAPE TO Q* OF THIS STAGE

DO 1.1 HOVE = 1, ANSI
ALPHA(HOVE) = STAJS(STAGE, HOVE, 2)
CQHTINOB

305

PROGRAN OP
C
10
60

65

CONTIHDE
CALL STAGE S(ALPHA, Y (<) , DEIA)
CALL IH TADICrAD, Y(t), 1)

CALL CUT(ALPKA(1), IDATt., RUS, ALPHA (2), STARS, VALUES,NO OF VL)

BEWIIID 1
GO TO 1
EHD

306

SDOBOUXIUE BEST

SUBROUTINE BESTtiLPIiA, i ALrfiA, X BETA, \ DETA, BETA, IGAWHA,

DELTA, STAkS, STAGE, XTDES)
LOGICAL EXTDE5
INTEGEK COL, HOW, ANSI, x ALCHA, IC BETA, * BETA, STAGE
DIMEHSION ALPIlAClf ALPHA), 13EIA (Y BETA, X DETA)
DIHENSIOK IGAHA(Y DETA, X B:.TA), SIARS('4, 350, 3)

10

DINESSIOH DELTA(Y BLTA, X BEIA)

C
C

15

20

25

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

SUBROUTINE BEST
OF STAGES 2 - M.

THI3 SUDr.oailNE FINDS THE Q-TABLE FOB EACH

THIS aS ACCOHl'LISIIED IN THE FOLLOWING MANHEB

1) ADD THE ELE.I-NIS IN THE BETA TABLE TO THOSE IB THE

ALPHA TABLE WHICH ABE POINTED TO BY GA.iaA.
(EG IF BETA :^ND -GaM.IA ARL Dl.tENSIONEO TO 2 X 2 AND
ALPHA IS DliENSIiNED TO 2 X 1, THEN ;
DELTA (1, 1) = iETA(1, 1) + ALPHA (GASHA(1,1)) ETC.)
2) THIS IS ASSIJNED 10 DELTA
3) NEXT, THE (lIKIIlUn FOR EACH OF THE HOWS OF DELTA IS
STORED IN S'liBS<SIAGE, ROW, 2), THE COLU.IN IS STORED
IN STASS(STAuE, ROW, 1), AND THE POINTER TO ALPHA
(I.E. GA.I.iA (uOU, COL)) IS STORED IN STARS(STAGE, ROW,3)
U) STARS IS THE Q-TAiLE.
CALL IN TADf(BETA, Y BEIA, X BETA)

30

READ IN BETA AMD GAHHA iAULES

CALL IN TADI(IGAMNA, Y BETA, X BETA)

NO OF CL= X DETA
NO OF RO = Y BETA
IF(STAGB.E!}.2 .AND.
DO 1 1 = I, Y BETA

3S
c
999

ao

US

c
c
c

50

55

20
30

.JOT.EXTDES) HO OF CL = 1

.WHITE{5, 999) I, (BEiAd, J) , J = 1, X BETA)

F0KNAT{1X, "(>, 13, ) ", 10F10.3, /, 2(6X, 10F10.3,/))
CONTINUE
DO 30 ROW = 1, HO OF BO
DO 5 HULL = 1, 3
STARS(STAGE, ROW, NULL) = 20000.0
CONTINUE
FIND THE ENTRY TO DELTA FOR uOB AS SHOWN IN THE COHHENT BLOCK
DO 20 COL = 1, NO OF CL
DELTA(ROW, COL) = 20000.0
IF{IGAnRA(ROV(, COl.) .EO. 0) GO TO 20
ANSI = iaAHi1A(R0W, COL)
DELTA(ROU, COL) = BETA(ROW, COL) ALPHA (ANSI)
IF (DELTA(HOW, COL) .GE. STARS(STAGE, HOW, 2)) GO TO 20
STARS(SIAGE, ROW, 1) = COL
STARS(STARE, RuW, 2) = DELTA (ROW, COL)
STARS(STAGE, ROU, 3) = IGAHtlA(ROU, COL)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE

307

SUBROUTINE BEST
C
c

60

C23
C
3001
C

65

232
2300

HRITE(5,23)
FORaAT(lHl)
WRITE(5,3001) STAGE
F0RflAT{K5X," CUKULATIVE TABLE - STAGE ",12," *",/)
DO 2300 II = 1,Y BETA
WRITB(5,232) II, (DELTA (II,JO), JJ = 1, X BETA)
F0RHAT(1X, 13, 2X, 18F7.2)
CONTIUUE

C
70

c
c

WRITE {5, 23)

3002

F0R(1AT(IX, 6X, "D(", II, ")", X, "0*(", II,

"X(", II, ")", /)
DO 2aOO II = 1, y DETi
WRITE(5,23U) II, (STAKS(STAGE, II, JJ), JJ = 1,3)
F0RMAT(1X, 13, 2X, 3(F7.2, 21))
CONTIMUE

WnrTE(5,3002) STAGE, STiGE, STAGE

75

231)
2400
C
80

c
c

WRITE(5, 23)
EETURH
EHD

308

SUBROUTINE INVAL

SUBROOTINE IH VA1,(N0 CF VL, X , I , VALUES)

IHTKGEE X (<4;, 1()
DIMENSION HO OF VL(22), VALUES (-22, 3)

10

C
C
C
C

c
c
c

15

20

25

30

SUDHOUTINE IN VAL
XIIIS iOUTIHE INPUTS THE VALUES OF A - Z UHICU
ARE IK THE FOLLOHIHG FOLHAT: <STAHTING VALUE> <H0. VAL0ES> <INCBEHEHT>
THEN, THE X-DI(1ENSI0NS AND TiiE Y-DI.1ENSI0NS OF THE TADLES USED IS THE
FIVE STAGES AEE COHPUTEJ AS X(U) AND T (U) BESECTIVLY. ALSO, THE
ARRAY NO OP VL CONTAINS THE SUHDEB OF VALUES OF A - V.
DO 2 I = 1, 22
READ(21, 1) VALUES(1,1), UO OF VL(I). VALUES(I,3)
FORMAT(FIG.3, 110, F10.3)
CONTINUE
DO 3 1=1,22
WRITE(5,1) VALUtS (I, 1), NO OF VL(I) , VALUES(I,3)
CONTINUE
1(D) = NO OF VL(2) NO OP VL(3) * HO OF VL(a)
XC) = HO OF VL(5) NO OF VL{6) HO OF VL(7)
*(3) = NO OF VL(B) HO OF VL(9) KO Oi" VL(10) UO OF VL(11)
X(3) = NO OF VL(12) HO OP 7Ln3) NO OF VL(1')
r ( 2 ) = HO OF VL(15) NO CP VL(16) NO Of VL(17) NO OF VL(18)
X(2) = 18
T ( 1 ) = HO OF VL(19) HO OF VL(20) NO OF VL(21) * NO OF VL (22)
X(1) = 1
RETURN
END

309

SUUnOUTINE IIITADF

c
c
5

SOBROUTIHE IH TABF(TABLi;,

T, X)

IHTEGEB X, R
DIMEHSIOH TABLE|I,X)
C
c saanouTiHE M TAB F
10

c
c

THIS BOUTIHE IHPUTS A EEAL ARBAT ADD HZTUHHS IT VIA

TABLE.
DO 1000 I = 1,T
liEAD(1,3) (TABLE{I,J)

3
15

= 1,X) .

FOMIFLT(10F10.3)
HRITE(5,M) I, (;ABLE(I,J), J=1,X)

^
1000

FOHKATCIX,"
CONTIHUE
RETURN
EUD

,10H0.3,/,2(6X,10P10.3,/))

310

SUUROUTINE INTADI
1

c
**************************** *******

SUDP.OUTINE IH TAEI(ITABLE, T, X)
IHTEGEP X, Y
DINBKSIOH ITADLE(Y,X)

C
C SUNNOUTIHE IN TAB I
C IT VIA ITADLE.
10

THIS SUDRCUTIME IHPUTS AN INTEGER ARRAY AHD REFORHS

1
15
2
1000

DO 1000 I = 1,*
HEAD(1,1) {1TADLE(I,J),J = 1,X)
FOKMAT(IOIIO)
MRITE(5,2) I, (ITABLE {I,J), J=1,X)
F0RAT(1X," C.IJ,") 10I10,/,2(6X,10I10,/))
CONTIHOE
RETORH
END

311

SUBROUriNE PROCES

SUaiiODTINE

10
S
S

*
15

20

25

C
C
C
C
C
10
C
C
C
20
C
C
C

, 1/
SUDSOUTIKE PKOCES
TlilS SODROUTIHE PROCESSES THE hOH/SrOP/NO ED OPTION.
IP THE EXTDES IS PETURNiD .TSUE. THEN ALL OPTIONS ARE USED OTHERWISE
THERE IS HO EXTERNAL DEJULPHJHIZATIOH.
EXTDES = .TRUE.
CONTINUE
INPUT CARD
REA0(21, 20)
FORnAT(80A1)

LINE

IS IT a RUN CARD7 IF lES BETORH

CALL LOAD(C0nPAR, 1, 3, LINE)
IF(QUAL(RUN, CONPAR, 3)) RETURN

30
C
C
C

IS IT A STOP CARD? IF TES DO IT

CALL LOAD(CO.iPAR, 1, 1, LINE)
IF(EQOAL(SrOP, COMPAE, t)) STOP
CALL L0AD(C0.1PAU, 1, 5, LINE)

35
C
C
C
40
30

45

PI!OCES(EXTDES)

LOUICAL EQUAL, EXTOES

JKTEGEa SIOP(U), RUN (3), NODES(5), COnPAB(IO), CURSOR
PIK3NSI0S Llk'E(OO)
DATA FUa/IHR, 1HU, IllN/
DATA STOP/1 HS, HIT, 1110, 1HP/
DATA KODES/IHH, 1110, 1H , lilt, HID/
DATA WHICH S/11IA, HID, 1IIC, 1UD, 1HE, 1IIP, IHu, 1HH ,1HI, 1I1J,
1HK, 1HL, 1H!I, 1UK, 1H0, 1HP, 1U0, 1HR, 1HS, 1HT, IHD, 1HV,
5.
t, 1, 1, *. 0, 3, 3. 3, 3, 3, 3. 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1,

IS IT A HO ED CAHD IF lES NO IT IF NOT ERROR

IF(EQUAL(SIODES, COnPAR, 5)) CO TO 30
CALL ERROH(I)
CONTINUE
EXTDES = .FALSE.
GO TO 10
EBO

312

SUBROUTINE STAGES

Cf ****************************************
c
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

I0

SUBKODTINH STAGE 5(ALEIIA, t iLPHA, BETA)

ItiTEGER COL, AKSI, X ALPHA
DIHEMSIOU ALPHA (Y ALPHA), BEXA(Y ALPHA)
C
C SUaBCOTlHE STAGE 5
FIHDS TBE OPTIMas VALDE FOB STAGE 5.
c
C READ IN BETA TABLE.
C
CALL IN TABF(BETA, I ALPHA, 1)
SHALL = 20000.0
WRITE(5,100)
100
F0naAT(1X,//,7X, "CUilULAlIVE TOTAL RETURNS",/,
E
IX, "FROM CCAL STAGE TO FINAL STEEL PRODUCT",//)
C
C
C FIND THE OPTinUM VALUE FOB THt BOW XH THE BETA.TABLE.
C
DO 20 COL = 1, * ALPHA
TEKP = 3tTA(CCL) ALPHA (COL)
IF(TEMP .GE. SHALL) GO TO 10
C
C ISOB IS THE SUBSCRIPT OF THE aiHlMUH VALUE lU THIS HOW.
C SaALL IS THE SMALLEST VALUE la THIS ROW
C
SHALL = TESP
ISO a = COL
10
CONTIHOE
WRITE(5, 200) COL, TESP
200
FOBNATJIX, 13, iX, F7.2)
C
20
CONTINUE
C AFTER THE DO LOOP WAS EXECUTED THE SMALLEST VALUE WILL BE IN SHALL AMD
C ITS SUBSCRIPT UILL BE IN ISUB, EOTQ UILL BE RETURNED VIA ALPHA(I) ASD
C ALPHA(2) BESPECTIVLY.
C
ALPHA(1) = SHALL
ALPHA (2) = FLOAT(ISOB)
BETUHH
EHD

313

SUBROUTINE OUT

SUBROUTINE OUT(FIMAL, ItATE, PUN, ALPHA2,

NO OF v..)

10
$

STARS, VALUES,

REAL HOISTR
INTjJnEH WASH, OPTIOH(lb), P, RUN, CCLUaH, SUB
DltlEHSIOH VALUES (22, 3), (ID OP VL(22), 0(15)
DIBKHSION PCI), STARS(IJ, 350, 3)
DATA 0/3.5, 4.6, 6.3, B.3, H.l, 1.2, 1.6, 2.2, 2.8, 3.8, 10.6,
14.4, 19. 1, 25.1, 33.5/

C
15

C SUflROUTINB OUT
C TUE PURPOSE OF THIS BCUTIHE i:i TO OUTPUT THE KESULTS OF THE OPTIHUS VALUES
C OF EACH OF THE FIVE TABLES.

C
c

20

25

C
c FIRST, OUTPUT THE RUN NUMBER AND DATE OF BUN.
C
WHITE(5, 1) RUN, IDATE
1
FORMAT(1H1,55X, 4HRUN , 12, 6H DATE , A10)
WRITE(5, 2)FINAL
2
FORMAT(IX, 28HHESUL1:: MINlMUa PATH COST = , F10.3,
$
2511 DOLLARS PER TON OF STtEL ,//)

WRITE(5, 3)
3
30

F0H!1AT(//" STAGE 5 DECISION VARIABLES",/, 6X,

"SEE COAL MODEL RESULTS")

C
INDEX 4 = ALPHA2
WRITE(5,200| INDEX 4
FORM AT(////,1 X,"INDEX 4 = ", 13)

200

35

40

C THE FOLLOWIHu PROCEDURE IS USiD 10 OUTPUT THE OPTIMUM VALUES GIVEN

C INFORMATION ON ONLY TUE A - V VARIABLES:
C
C
1) TAKE APART TUE INDICES USING SUBROUTINE UNFOLD. THIS WILL TEILD
C
INDEXN, WHERE N IS THE NUMBER OF THE STAGE.
C
2) NEXT, WE FIND TUE CORRESPONDING A - V VALUE USING SEARCH.
C
3) LASl'Lr,THE RESULTS ASE OUIPUI.
C
4) THIS IS REPEATED FOE FIVE INPUT AND DECISON VAHIBLES FOR
C
THE FIVE STAGES.

45

C
CALL UHFOLD(HO OP VL{2), HO OP VL(3), NO OF VL(4), 0, INDEX4, P)
COAL = SEARCH(VALUES(2, 1) , P(1), VALUES(2, 3))
ASH = SEA3Cii(VALUES(3, 1), P(2), VALUES(3, 3))
TONS = SEAHCH(VALUES(4, 1), P(3), VALUES(4, 3))

50

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC STAGE 4
C
100
55
10
S

WHITE(5, 100)
FORMAT( IX, 24HSIAGE 4 INPUT VARIABLES:)
WRITE(5, 10)COAL, ASH, TONS
F0RMAT(9X, 27HCLEAN COAi. TOTAL SULPHUR = , r7.3, 10H PERCENT,
17HCLEAN COAL ASH = , F7.3, 12X, 10H PERCENT, ,/, 12X,

314

suoBouriHE our
f
S
60

205
65

11
70

75

85
12

S
$

95

13
$
S

105

110

CALL UHFOLD(HO OF VL(8), HO OF VL (9), HO OF VL(10),

110 OF VL{H), 1!IDEX3, P)

CK TOT S = SEARCH(VALUES(8, 1), P(t), VALUES(8, 3))

ASH = SEARCH (VALUES(9, 1), P(2), VALUES(9, 3))
STAD = SEARCH (VALUES(10, 1), P(3), VALUES(10, 3))
WEIGHT = SEAKCH(VALUES{11, 1), PC)), VALUES(11, 3))
HKITE(5, 12) CK TOT S, ASH, STAU, HEIGHT
rOEIlAT(lX, 2i4nsrAGE 3 TIIPUT VAHIADLES;, /, 6X, IIUCOKE TOTAL
lOHSOLPHUa = , F7.2, 21H i-ERCENT, COKE ASH = , F7.2, HH PZH,
23nCENT, COKE STABILITY = , F7.2,/,9X, 15H COKE WEIGHT = ,
F7.H ,20H TOMS PEB TOH STEEL
)

C
103

100

IHDED H = INT(STARS(1, 1HDEX4, 1))

WaiTE<5,205) IIIDED H
F0RHAT(////,1X,"INDEi = ", 13)
CALL UNKOLD(!IO OF VL(5), NO OF VL(6), HO OP VL(7), O.IUDEDI, P)
F TEMP = SEARCH (VALUES( 5, 1), P(l), VALUES(5, 3))
KOISTR = SEARCH (VALUES(6, 1), P(2), VALUES(6, 3))
PULVEB = SEAaCH(VALUES(7, 1), P(3), VALUES(7, 3))
HfiITE(5, 11) F TEMP, ilCISTR, PULVER
FORMAT(U, 28H STAGE H DECISION VARIABLES; , /, 61,
19HFLUE TENPERATUBE = , F7.2, 2511 DEGKEES F, COAL HOISTUHB,
3H = , F7., " EEKCEBT BY WEIGHT," /,9X,
"PULVEaiZATIOH LEVEL ", F7-M, 9U PEBCEHT )

$
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC STAGE 3
C
INDEX 3 = INT(STARS(1, INDEX U, 3))
WaiTE(5,210) INDEX 3
210
FOHBATl////,IX,"INDEX 3 = , 13)

80

90

20HCLEAN COAL HEIGIir = ,17.3, 2UH PEhCEKI TONS PEH TOM OF

,7H STEEL.)

INDBD3 = HIT(STARS(3,IH0EX3, 1))

URITE(5, 103) IHJED3
F0K.1AT{////,1X,"INDED3 =", 13)
CALL UNFOLD(HO OF VL(12J, NO OF VL(13), NO OF VL(1'),
0, IHDED3, P)
RATIO = SEARCH(VALDES(1^, 1), P (1), VALUES(12, 3))
W RATE = SEARCH(VALUES (13,1), P(2), VALUES (13, 3))
D TRSP = SiiAKCH(VALUES(14, 1), P(3), VALUES(14, 3))
WHITE(5, 13) RATIO, V KATE, o TEHP
F0BNAT(1X, 27HSTAGE 3 DiCISION VARIABLES:, /, 6X, BUBASICITlt
9H RATIO = , F7.2, 37H WIKD fiATE(SCF/TON OF HOT JETAL) =
F9.2, 22H, BLAST TEKl-ERATORE = , F8.2, 10H DEGREES K)

C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC STAGE 2
C
INDEX2 = INT(SrARS(3, IJDEX3, 3))
WniTE(5,10a) IHDEX2
10l
FOysAT(////, IX,"INDEX2 =", 13)
CALL UHFOLD(.'IO OF VL(15j, HO OF VL(16), HO OF VL(17),
$
KO OF VL(18), IHDEX2, P)
H METAL = SEAHCH(VALUES{15, 1), P(1), VALUES(15, 3))
UN OF S = SEAKCn(VALUHS(16, 1), P(2), VALUES(16, 3))
HH OF SI = SEARCH(VALUES (17, 1), P(3), VALUS(17, 3))
HH TEKP = SEABCH(VALUES(18, 1), P(), VAHJES(18, 3))

315

SUDHOOriHE OUT
115
14
$
I
$
$

120

WRITE(5, 14) U METAL, HS OF S, HN OF SI, UH TEMP

FORMAT(l):, 25H STAGE 2 iBEUT V A r .lABLfcS: , /, 6X,
20H UOT METAL WEIGHT = , F6.2, 2311 TONS PER TON OF STEEL,,
141IHH SULPHUR = F6.J, 9H PERCZliT, /, 9X,
13H(m SILICON = , F9.3, 9u PEUCEKT,
17HHM TENI'ERATUBE = , F9.2, 10H DEGREES F)

125

130

135

140

145

ISO

155

160

165

170

INDED2 = INT{STABS(2, INCEX2, 1))

WRITE(5, 15) 1NDED2
15
rOE,1AT(//,IX, 2aH STAGE 2 DECISION VARIABLES:, /, 6X,
$
16HOPTION NUMEEfl = , 13)
GO TO (1000,2000,3000,4000,4000,4000,4000,4000,5000,5000,5000,
S
5000, 5000, 6000, 6000, 6000, 6000, 6000), INDED2
1000
HBITE (5, 101)
101
F0RMAT(9X, "NO DESULPHUHIZATIOH.")
GO TO 7000
2000
HBITE(5, 201)
201
FORMAT(9X, "1 PLONGE MAG COKE")
GO TO 7000
3000
WB1TE(5, 301)
301
F0BMAT{9X, "2 PLUNGES MAG COKE.")
GO TO 7000
4000
12 = IHDED2 - 3
M n i T E ( 5 , 401) 0(12)
401
F0RMAT(9X, "CAC2 INJECTION AT
F7.3, " LB. CAC2 REAGENT "
i
."PES HTHM")
GO TO 7000
5000
12 = INDEQ2 - 3
WRITE(5, 531) 0(12)
501
F0RMAT(9X, "CAC2 WITH KB STIuBEB AT
F7.3, " LB. CAC2 "
S
, "BEACJENT PEB NTHM")
GO TO 7000
6000
12 = IHDED2 - 3
mT(5, 601) 0(12)
601
F0R.1AT(9X, "CAO INJECTION AT ", F7.3, " LB. CAO PEE HTHB")
7000
CONTINUE
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCoCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC STAGE 1
C
IHDEXl = IHT(STABS(2, i:iCEX2, 3))
SITE(5,105) INDEX1
105
FOHHAT(////,1X,"INDE*1 =", 13)
CALL UNFOLD{NO OF VL(19), NO OF VL(20), HO OF VL(21},
$
NO OF VL(22), INDEX 1, P)
WEIGHT = SEARCH{VALUS(19, 1), P(l), VALUES(19, 3))
HM S = SEARCH(VALUES(20, 1), P{2), VALUES(20, 3))
HM SI = SEARCH{VAL0ES(21, 1), P (3), VALUES(21, 3))
HS TEHP = SEARC1I(VALUES(22, 1), P(4), VALUES(22, 3))
HR1TE(5, 16) WEIGHT, IIH S, Hii 31, HH TEilP
16
F0B,1AT(1X, 24HSTAGE 1 liPUT VABIADLES;, /, 6X,
i
20H HOT METAL WEIGHT = , F7.3, 24H TONS PEB TON OF STEEL, ,
$
UHlin SULPHUR = , F5.3, " PERCENT", /,9X,"UB SILICOH =
J
F7.2, " PERCENT, HM XENPESATUEE =
F7.2,
i
11H DEGREES F.,//////)
RETURN
END

SUBROUIIMS UNFOLD

SUBaoUTINE UHf0LD(ll01, IIOJ, UOK, NOL, ITBACE, P)

INTEGER P
DinSMSION P(i()
HI = HOI
NJ = NOJ
KK = NOK
HL = tlOL
IMDEX = ITBACE

10

IF(NJ .EQ. 0)
IF (NK .EQ. 0)
IF(NL .EO. 0)

15

20

1000
25

= 1

= 1
= 1

I = HI
IXJ = HI
MJ
IXJXK
HI HJ NK
lALLtt
HI HJ HK UL
IF(INOEX .GT. 0 .AND. IIIDEX .LE. lALLU) GOTOU
WRITERS, 1000) IIBACE, Nl, NJ, NK, HL
POr.MATlIX," lEBt = 1 AT INDEX,I,J,K,L =",5I5)

P(1) = 0
P{2) =0
P(3) =0
P() =0
BETOBH

30

IF(NOK -GT. 0) GO TO 5
LH1 = -1
KH1 = -1
GO TO 2

35
c

ao

C
C

6
l5

50

IF(HOL .GT. 0) GO TO 6
LN1 = -1
GO TO 1
LH1 = IHDEX / IXJXK
IHDEX = HOD(INDEX,IXJXK)
IF(IHDET .SE. 0) GO TO I
INDEX = IXJXK
LB1 = LNl - 1
C0NTIHU2
KH1 = IHDEX / IXJ
INDEX = HOO{INDEX, IXJ)
IF (INDEX .NE. 0) GOTO 2
INDEX = IXJ
KH1 = Kill - 1

55
CONTINUE
J1 = IHDEI / I

317

SOBHOiJTIHE UNFOLD
IHDEX = M0C(IHDEX, I)
IF (INDEX .:IE. 0) GO TO 3
INDEX = I
JH1 = JMl - 1

60
C
3
65

CONTINUE
P(1) = INDEX
P(2) = jni 1
P{3) = KH1 1
PC*) = LMI 1
RETUBH
END

318

saSHOUTIHB LOAD

SODKOUTINE LOAD(TABLE, IHITAL, LAST, LINE)

IHTEGER 'rADLE(LASI)
DIHENSIOH LINE(SO)
DO 10 I = INITAL, LAST

10

IS

C
C
C
C

SUBKOUTINE LOAD
THIS SUBnOUTISE BETUBHS TUB INITAL - LAST
ELEMENTS OF LINE IHIO TABLE

10

ISUB = I - INITAL I
TABLE(ISOB) = LIHE(I)
CONHHUE
GETUBN
END

319

FUHCTIOH SEADCH

c
c*******************************************
c
FUNCTION SEAnCH(SIABT, INDEX, DELTA)
SEARCH = START (INDEX - 1) DELTA
EETUBH
END

PailCTION EQOAL

LOGICAL FOKCTION EQUALICHECKS, CHECKE, SIZE)

IIITiJGEF SIZE, CHECKR(SIZE), CHECKE(SIZE)
C
C
C
C

10

THIS FUHCTION KETURMS .lEUE. IS CJIECKE = CHECKE, ELSE FETUHNS

FALSE
EQUAL = .FALSE.
DO 10 I = 1, SIZE
IF (CUECKB(SIZF) .HE. CHECXEJSIZS)) DETUBH
CONriHUE
EQOAL = .THUE.

RETUBU
END

S0OBOUTINB ERROR

SOBROOTItJE nROR(I)
WKITE(5, 1) I
F0RMAT(1X, SHERROfl, II)
STOP
END

LIST OF REFERENCES

1.

Varga, J., and H. W. Lownie. A Systems Analysis Study

of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry,
Columbus; Battelle Memorial Institute, 1969.

2.

Rudd, D. F., and C. C. Watson. Strategy of Process

Engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968.

3.

Aris, R., G. L. Nemhauser, and D. S. Wilde.

"Optimization of Multistage Cyclic and Branching
Systems by Serial Procedure," AIChE Journal,
November 1964, p. 913.

4.

Lee, E. S. "Optimum Design and Operation of Chemical

Processes," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,
August 1963, p. 30.

5.

Ray, W. H., and J. Szekely. Process Optimization.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

6.

Fabian, T. "A Linear Programming Model of Integrated

Iron and Steel Production," Management Science,
July 1958, p. 439.

7.

Tsao, C. S., and R. H. Day. "A Process Analysis Model

of the US Steel Industry," Management Science, June
1971, p. 588.

8.

Wrathall, E. "Linear Programming for Optimal Blast

Furnace Burdening," Blast Furnace and Steel Plant,
May 1966, p. 399.

9.

Hilty, D., and T. Kaveney. "Economic Considerations

of Various Changes for Stainless Steel Production,"
Journal of Metals, May 1968, p. 62.

10.

DeGarmo, E., R. Greese, and S. Rao, "What is the True

Value of Foundry Returns?," Foundry, July 1966,
p. 62.

11.

DeGarmo, E., R. Greese, and S. Rao. "Determining the

Lowest Cost Charge Mixes," Foundry, August 1966,
p. 63.

322

323

12.

Tarkoff, M. J., J. D. Pekete, and W. R. Gray. "Energy

Allocation at Inland, A Computer Helps Call the
Shots," 33 Magazine, May 1974, p. 32.

13.

Russell, C. S., and W. J. Vaughn. Steel Production;

Processes, Products and Residuals. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1976.

14.

Calanog, E., and G. H. Geiger. "Optimization of

Stainless Steel Melting Practice by Means of
Dynamic Programming," Journal of Metals, July 1967,
p. 96.

15.

Bayko, R. M.S. thesis, Dept. of Electrical Engineer

ing, Univ. of Toronto, 1970.

16.

Bellman, R. Dynamic Programming. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, r957.

17.

Bellman, R., and S. Dreyfus. Applied Dynamic

Programming. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1962.

18.

Nemhauser, G. L. Introduction to Dynamic Programming.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.

19.

Duffin, R., E. Peterson, and C. Zener. Geometric

Programming. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.

20.

Dittman, F. "Oxygen Steelmaking Cost Comparison:

Kaldo vs. LD," Journal of Metals, April 1965,
p. 376.

21.

Sanders, S. D., and J. M. Svoboda. "A Modern Approach

for Conducting Sand Investigations," AFS Cast Metals
Research Journal, December 1968, p. 222.

22.

Roy, B. "Problems and Methods with Multiple Objective

Functions," Mathematical Programming, November 1971,
p. 239.

23.

MacCrimmon, K. R. "An Overview of Multiple Objective

Decision Making," Proceedings of Seminaron Multi
Criteria Decision Making. J. Cochrane and M.
Zeleny, editors. Columbia: University of South
Carolina, 1973.

324

24.

Benayoun, R., 0. Larichev, J. Montgolfier, and J.

Tergny. "Linear Programming with Multiple Objective
FunctionsThe Method of Constraints," Translation
by Plenum Publishing Co., from Automation and Remote
Control (Moscow), August 1971, p. 108.

25.

Duckstein, L., D. Monarchi, and C. Kisiel. "Inter

active Multi-Objective Decision Making Under Un
certainty," Section 3 of Theories of Decision in
Practice. New York: Crane Russak and Co., 1976,
p. 117.

26.

Hillier, F. S., and G. J. Lieberman. Operations

Research. San Francisco: Holden Day, 1974.

27.

Worthington, P. "Economics of Handling Materials in

the Iron and Steel Industry," Journal of the Iron
and Steel Institute, October 1952, p. 849.

28.

Leonard, J. V., and D. R. Mitchell, editors. Coal

Preparation. Baltimore: Port City Press, 1968.

29.

Given, P. H., and W. F. Wyss. "The Chemistry of

Sulphur in Coal," British Coal Utilization Research
Association Monthly Bulletin 25, 1961, p. 1.

30.

Lowry, H. H., editor. Chemistry of Coal Utilization.

New York; John Wiley and Sons, 1945.

31.

Kremp, G. W. Professor, University of Arizona.

notes from Met. 298C, 1976.

32.

Nicholls, P., and W. S. Selvig. Clinker Formation as

Related to the Fusability of Coal Ash. Washington:
USBM Bulletin 364, 1932.

33.

Anonymous. "Trends in Coal Cleaning Noted at Mining

Equipment Forum," Mining Engineering (AIME),
October 1977, p. 51.

34.

Elk, F. A. "Common Sense Coal Preparation," Coal

Mining and Processing, March 1978, p. 38,

35.

Duerbrouck, A. W. Performance Characteristics of

Hydrocyclones. Washington; USBM Report of Investiga
tions 7891, 1974.

36.

O'Brien, E., and K. Sharpeta. "Water-Only Cyclones:

Their Functions and Performance," Coal Age, January
1976, p. 110.

Class

325

37.

Goodrich, M. F. "Use of Water-Only Cyclones as Clean

Coal Scalpers Preceding Heavy-Media Cyclones,"
AIME Preprint, 1977.

38.

Chen, W. L. ManagerProcess Development, Roberts and

Schaefer Co., personal communication, December 1977.

39.

Zeilinger, J. E., and A. W. Duerbrouck. Physical

Desulphurization of Fine Size Coals on a Spiral
Concentrator. Washington: USBM Report of Investiga
tions 8152, 1976.

40.

Duerbrouck, A. W., and J. Hudy. Performance Charac

teristics of Coal Washing Equipment: Dense Media
Cyclones. Washington: USBM Report of Investigations
7673, 1973.

41.

Sun, S. "Hypothesis for Different Flotabilities of

Coals, Carbons, and Hydrocarbon Minerals,"
Metallurgical Transactions (AIME), Vol. 199, 1954,
p. 67.

42.

Kuester, J., and J. Mize. Optimization Techniques

with Fortran. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

43.

Strangway, P. K., and M. D. Holowaty. "Blast Furnace

Test with 20,000 Net Tons of FMC Form Coke at
Inland's No. 5 Blast Furnace," Agglomeration 77,
Vol. 2, 1977, p. 1012.

44.

Thiessen, G. "Study of Distribution of Coal Sulphur

in Coke," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,
May 1935, p. 473.

45.

Wolfson, D. E., G. W. Birge, and J. G. Wilson.

Comparison of Properties of Coke Produced by the
BM-AGA and Industrial Methods. Washington: USBM
Report of Investigations 6354, 1964.

46.

Wilson, P. J., and J. H. Wells. Coal, Coke, and Coal

Chemicals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

47.

Quigley, J. J., and N. Sayles. "Improving Blast

Furnace Performance," Ironmaking Conference
Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 33, 1974, p. 157.

^
48.

Flint, R. V. "Effect of Burden Materials and

Practices on Blast Furnace Coke Rate," Regional
Meetings of AISI, 1961, p. 9.

326

49.

Wenger, R. 0., and V. A. Neubaum. "The Effect of Coke

Plant Operating Variables on the Quality of
Metallurgical Coke," Ironmaking Conference Proceed
ings (AIME), Vol. 28, April 1969, p. 170.

50.

Benedict, L. G., R. R. Thompson, and R. 0. Wenger.

"Relationship Between Coal Petrographic Composition
and Coke Stability," Blast Furnace and Steel Plant,
March 1968, p. 217.

51.

Smith, F. W., D. A. Reynolds, and D. E. Wolfson.

"Coking Properties of Pittsburgh District Coals,"
Mining Engineering, March 1957, p. 360.

52.

Smith, F. W., and D. A. Reynolds. Effect of Tempera

ture, Charge Density and Blending on Coal Carbonization. Washington: USBM Report of Investigations
5110, 1954.

53.

Wu, W. R. K., and W. H. Fredericks.

Between Coal and Coke Properties.
USBM Bulletin 661, 1971.

54.

Brisse, A. H. "Determination of Coke Oven Productivity

from Coal Charge Characteristics," Blast Furnace and
Steel Plant, April 1959, p. 147.

55.

Benedict, L. G., and R. R. Thompson. "Selection of

Coals and Coal Mixes to Avoid Excessive Coking
Pressure," Proceedings of the Ironmaking Conference,
Vol. 35, 1976, p. 276.

56.

De Sieghardt, W. C., L. A. Riva, and H. E. Harris.

"Significance and Some Limitations of Methods of
Evaluating Coals for Coking," Journal of Metals,
December 1966, p. 1337.

57.

Sorenson, S. M. Research Engineer, Inland Steel

Company, personal communication. May 1978.

58.

Wenger, R. Engineer, Coal and Coke Division, Homer

Research Lab, Bethlehem Steel Company, personal
communication. May 1978.

59.

McGannon, H. E. The Making, Shaping and Treating of

Steel. Pittsburgh: Herbick & Held, 1971.

Relationships
Washington:

327

60.

Ortuglio, C., J. Walters, and D. Wolfson. Coal

Carbonization StudiesAltering Composition and
Yield of Volatile Products by Increasing the Free
Space Above the Charge. Washington: USBM Report of
Investigations 7400, 1970.

61.

Grosick, H., E. Helms, and J. Airgood. "Underfiring

Requirement of Modern Coke Ovens," Iron and Steel
Engineer, May 1976, p.'27.

62.

Boylan, M. G. Economic Effects of Scale Increases in

the Steel IndustryThe Case of United States
Blast Furnaces. New York: Praeger, 1975.

63.

Voice, E. W., and K. G. Dixon. "Ironmaking Pro

ductivity," Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute,
June 1962, p. 438.

64.

Hatano, M., and M. Fukuda. "The Effect of Coke

Properties on Blast Furnace Operation," Ironmaking
Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 35, 1976, p. 2.

65.

Mantegazza, A., and M. Carignani. "The Importance of

Burden Beneficiation on Blast Furnace Operations,"
Ironmaking Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 30, 1971, p. 2.

66.

Lu, W. K., editor. Proceedings of the Symposium on

the External Desulphurization of Hot Metal.
Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University Press, 1975.

67.

Suzuki, G., T. Kobayashi, and T. Miyashita.

"Decreasing the Coke Rate in Blast Furnace Opera
tions," Ironmaking Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 30,
1971, p. 499.

68.

Stephenson, R. L. Discussion, Ironmaking Proceedings

(AIME), Vol. 30, 1971, p. 512.

69.

Rosenqvist, T. Principles of Extractive Metallurgy.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

70.

Wintrell, R. "From Blast Furnace Statistics to a

Thermochemical Computer Model," Ironmaking
Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 33, 1974, p. 20.

71.

Bodsworth, C., and H. B. Bell. Physical Chemistry

of Iron and Steel Manufacture. London: Longman
Group, Ltd., 1972.

328

72.

Ward, R. G. .an Introduction to the Physical Chemistry

of Iron and Steel Making. London; Edward Arnold
Ltd., 1962.

73.

Strassberger, J. H., editor. Blast FurnaceTheory

and Practice. New York: Gordon and Breach, 1969.

74.

Van Kueren, J. W. "Blast Furnace Tar Injection

Experience at Bethlehem Plant, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation," Ironmaking Proceedings (AIME), Vol.
30, 1971, p. 332.

75.

Stolnacker, N. J. Discussion, Ironmaking Proceedings

(AIME), Vol. 30, 1971, p. 344.

76.

Rombough, W. R. "Optimizing Fuel Injection at

Dofasco," Ironmaking Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 30,
1971, p. 345.

77.

Stephenson, R. L. "Optimizing Fuel Injection,"

Ironmaking Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 30, 1971, p.
343.

78.

Melcher, N. B., R. B. Schulter, T. L. Joseph, and

R. J. Leary. "The Use of Natural Gas and Oxygen
in the Stack and Tuyeres of an Experimental Blast
Furnace," Ironmaking Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 27,
1968, p. 104.

79.

Agarwal, J. C., and J. F. Elliott. "High Sulphur

Coke for Blast Furnace Use," Ironmaking Proceedings
(AIME), Vol. 30, 1971, p. 50.

80.

Banya, S., and J. Chipman. Metallurgical Transac

tions (AIME), Vol. 236, 1966, p. 130.

81.

Ambrosetti, P., and L. Crovella. "Some Considerations

about Desulphurizing in the Blast Furnace,"
Proceedings of the Third International Iron and
Steel Meeting, Luxemburg, October 1962.

82.

Kennedy, T. H., and A. W. Thornton. "Studies

Relating to the Control of Sulphur in the Produc
tion of Pig Iron," YearbookAmerican Iron & Steel
Institute. New York: AISI, 1949, p. 222.

83.

Rist, A., and G. Bonnivard. "Reduction of an Iron

Oxide Bed with a Gas," Revue de Metallurgie, Vol.
60, 1963, p. 23.

329

84.

Bodsworth, C., and H. Bell. Physical Chemistry of

Iron and Steel Manufacture. London; Longman Group
Ltd., 1972.

85.

Besich, J. "The Use of Iron and Steel Temperature in

Blast Furnace Operation and Quality Control,"
Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, March 1965, p. 227.

86.

Angelos, O., G. Geiger, and C. Loper. "Factors

Influencing Carbon Pickup in Cast Iron,"
Transactions of the American Foundryman's Society,
Vol. 76, 1968, p. 629.

87.

Szekely, J., editor. Blast Furnace Technology.

York: Marcel Decker, Inc., 1972.

88

Kurzinski, E. F. "Desulphurization of Iron-Status

and Evaluation," Iron and Steel Engineer, April
1976, p. 59.

89.

Gaines, J. M., editor. BOF Steelmaking. New York:

American Institute of Mining Engineers, 1975.

90.

Sims, C. E., editor. Electric Furnace Steelmaking.

New York: American Institute of Mining Engineers,
1967.

91.

Koros, P., R. Petrushka, and R. Kerl. "The Lime-Mag

Process for the Desulphurization of Hot Metal,"
Iron and Steel Making, June 1977, p. 34.

92.

Edgar, Bill. Senior Research Engineer, Inland Steel

Company, personal communication, July 1978.

93.

Gillum, D. R. "Statistical Study on the Effects of

Hot Metal Sulphur on Basic Oxygen Furnace Opera
tions," Open Hearth Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 58,
1975, p. 29.

94.

McNamara, J. "The Effects of Lime Properties on Basic

Oxygen Steelmaking," Journal of Metals, July 1965,
p. 781.

95.

Kristiansen, J., and J. Hartmann. "The Effect of

Operating Variables on Sulphur Performance in a
BOF Shop," Open Hearth Conference Proceedings (AIME),
Vol. 61, 1978, p. 28.

New

330

96.

Rounsevell, J., and N. Robins. "Effect of Dolomite

Charge Weight, Hot Metal Analysis and Ladle Slag
Skimming on Turndown Sulphur Content at Inland's
No. 4 BOF Shop," Open Hearth Conference Proceedings
(AIME), Vol. 57, 1974, p. 28.

97.

Diehl, D. C., and E. L. Coe. "Effect of Hot Metal

Manganese on BOF Operating Practice," Open Hearth
Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 53, 1970, p. 67.

98.

Benyo, A. "The Effect of Hot Metal Quality on BOF

Operations," Open Hearth Conference Proceedings
(AIME), Vol. 53, 1970, p. 62.

99.

Iyengar, R., and F. Petrilli. "Slagmaking Reactions

in the BOF Process," Journal of Metals, July 1973,
p. 21.

100.

Pehlke, R. Unit Operations of Extractive Metallurgy.

New York; American Elsevier Publishing, 1975.

101.

Singh, B. D. Senior Engineer, Consolidated Coal

Company, personal communication. May 1978.

102.

Aker, C. L. Senior Engineer, Gates Engineering,

personal communication. May 1978.

103.

Lien, Tom. Engineer, Mountain States Engineers,

personal communication. May 1978.

104.

Peters, M. S., and K. D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design

and Economics for Chemical Engineers. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1968.

105.

Wallace, Bill. Irrigation and Sprinkler Supply

Company, personal communication, June 1978.

106.

Segnick, M. Public Information Director, Tucson Gas

& Electric, personal communication. May 1978.

107.

Decker, A., P. Nilles, and P. Dauby. "The Quality

of Materials Charged in the BOF Vessel Related to
the Economics and Quality of the Produced Steel,"
Open Hearth Conference Proceedings (AIME), Vol. 60,
1977.