COMPARISON OF SINTER AND PELLET USAGE IN AN

INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT1

Jose Murilo Mourão2
Ian Cameron3
Manuel Huerta4
Nishit Patel6
Rodrigo Pereira7

Abstract
Global iron ore production has grown dramatically in recent years to meet increasing
world steel demand, especially in Asia. High grade lump ore resources are being
depleted and a greater amount of fine concentrate/pellet feed will enter into
production as lower grade deposits are mined. Integrated steel plants need to make
convenient use of the available iron ore resources to optimize operation and the cost
of steel. The advantages and disadvantages of using greater amounts of iron ore
concentrate are discussed, focusing on the production and use of fired pellets in the
blast furnace. Hot metal production using sinter and pellets in the blast furnace is
compared, considering aspects like; blast furnace productivity, environmental
performance, solid waste management, slag-coke rates, and the steel plant energy
balance.
Key words: Iron ore; Pellet feed; Sintering; Pelletizing; Blast furnace.

1
Technical contribution to the 43rd Ironmaking and Raw Materials Seminar, 12h Brazilian Symposium
on Iron Ore and 1st Brazilian Symposium on Agglomeration of Iron Ore, September 1st to 4th, 2013,
Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
2
Metallurgist Engineer. Iron Ore BU Consultant at Hatch Consultoria, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil;
jmourao@hatch.com.br.
3
Metallurgical Engineer at McGill University, Senior Director at Hatch Ltd. Mississauga, ON,
Canada; icameron@hatch.ca.
4
Chemical Engineer at University of Toronto, Process Engineer at Hatch Consultoria, Belo
Horizonte, MG, Brazil; mhuerta@hatch.ca.
5
Chemical Engineer at McMaster University, Process Engineer-in-Training at Hatch Ltd.
Mississauga, ON, Canada; nishit.patel@hatch.ca.
6
Mechanical Engineer, Hatch Ltd. Mississauga, ON, Canada; rpereira@hatch.com.br.
1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, fine iron ore concentrate production, also referred to as pellet feed
increased as the availability of new lump ore and high quality sinter fines declined
during a period of rapidly expanding demand driven by the Asian steel industries. As
a result, iron ore miners developed lower grade resources that must be finely ground
and processed to increase their Fe content to the levels required by the marketplace.
This trend will continue as lower grade resources must be exploited to meet the
continuing growth in global steel production.
Most pellet feed will be sold in the seaborne trade rather than being captive to a
dedicated steel plant. A fraction of these finely ground concentrates has been and will
continue to be blended with sinter feed and processed on sintering strands. The
application of concentrate in sintering is ultimately limited as permeability and quality
limitations are reached, hence global pellet production will inevitably increase to
consume the concentrate that will enter the marketplace. Steelmakers will need to
increase the pellet consumption in their blast furnace burdens, or in the extreme case
switch to all-pellet blast furnace operation.
Hatch compared the merits of using both pellets and sinter as the main constituents
of the blast furnace burden, focusing on blast furnace productivity, environmental
performance, solid waste management, and the steel plant energy balance. For this
exercise, only sinter fines and fired pellets available in the seaborne market were
considered. Lump ores were not used in the burden mixes studied due to the
expected decline in lump availability in the coming years.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Trends in the Seaborne Iron Ore Market

The global seaborne iron ore market including sinter feed, lump ore, pellets and pellet
feed has rapidly increased over the last decade. While sinter feed sales dominate the
global seaborne trade, pellet feed and fired pellet sales have grown at a faster rate.
Hatch anticipates that fired pellet and pellet feed sales will further accelerate at the
expense of sinter feed due to declining availability of high-quality sinter fine
resources. In Figures 1 and 2, the growth of the seaborne trade and Hatch’s
projection of the global seaborne iron ore trade to 2040 are presented.

Figure 1. Historic Growth and the Future Projection of the Global Seaborne Iron Ore Trade.(1)
  
Figure 2. Projected Product Sales Distribution for the Global Seaborne Iron Ore Trade.(1)

The increasing importance of fired pellets and pellet feed in the global seaborne trade
will push steel producers to increase their utilization in the blast furnace. Some of the
additional pellet feed will continue to be added to the sintering mix despite
productivity loss and the inherent environmental disadvantages of the sintering
process. The remainder will have to be pelletized and added to the blast furnace
burden to replace declining sinter and lump ore supplies.
Hatch has compared the merits of using sinter and pellets in the blast furnace to help
steel producers evaluate the impact of increased pellet usage in the blast furnace
burden.

2.2 Comparing Sinter and Pellets

Sinter and pellets are agglomerated forms of iron ore, both suitable for use as blast
furnace burden materials. The principle difference between sinter and pellets arises
from the type of raw materials used in their preparation and the nature of the sinter
and pelletizing agglomeration processes.
Sinter is a clinker-type iron bearing material that is produced when a mixture of iron
ore fines known as sinter feed, finely ground fluxes, carbon (coke breeze or
anthracite) and various recycled iron bearing materials are uniformly fired along a
continuous traveling grate reactor. Fuel in the sinter mix is ignited and generates
temperatures high enough for the fine particles to fuse together into a porous clinker
material which is subsequently crushed and sized after cooling to room temperature.
The resulting sinter is suitable for use as a blast furnace burden material, but is not
sufficiently strong to withstand long distance transportation. As a result, sintering
plants are normally located in close vicinity to the blast furnace, usually within an
integrated steel works.
Fired pellets are hard iron bearing balls that are produced to a specific size range by
forming iron concentrate into unbaked green pellets and then heat hardened these
green pellets in a dedicated induration furnace. The main feed materials are finely
ground iron ore concentrate, finely ground fluxes and, in the case of hematite ores,
finely ground carbon (coke breeze or anthracite). Magnetite ores do not require
carbon additions as the magnetite oxidation in the induration furnace provides
enough heat to sustain the process. The mixed materials are formed into small
8-16 mm diameter balls through the action of rotating drums or discs at a controlled
moisture and with a binder such as bentonite. The green balls are then fired at
controlled temperatures in an induration furnace which can be one of two types: a
single straight grate induration furnace or a train of three reactors consisting of a
travelling grate, rotary kiln and cooler, known as the grate-kiln process. The high
temperatures produced in either process heat harden the green pellets, producing
fired pellets which are strong enough to be used as blast furnace burden materials.
Due to their higher physical resistance compared to sinter, pellets can survive long
distance transportation and are thus an internationally traded commodity. Depending
on their final user, pellets are often categorized between blast furnace (BF) pellets
and direct reduction (DR) pellets, the latter having a higher Fe and lower gangue
content consistent with the requirements of the direct reduction process. The focus of
this paper will only be on BF pellets.
Sinter and BF pellets differ significantly in both their chemical and physical properties
and their performance inside the blast furnace is dependent on both. This paper will
focus only on the chemical properties, as those have a greater impact on the
variables analyzed; blast furnace productivity, coke rate and slag rate. The typical
chemical properties of sinter and BF pellets, the latter corresponding to those
available in the seaborne market are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical chemical properties of sinter and BF pellets(1,2)

Sinter BF Pellets
Fe, % 55.0 - 58.0 62.0 - 66.0
SiO2, % 5.0 - 6.0 2.0 - 5.0
Al2O3, % 1.0 - 1.3 0.4 - 1.0
CaO, % 9.0 - 11.0 1.0 - 4.5
MgO, % 1.4 - 2.0 0.2 - 1.3
CaO / SiO2 > 1.7 0.8 - 1.1

From Table 1, it is evident that the main differences in the chemical properties
between sinter and BF pellets are the total iron (Fe) content, the total acid gangue
(SiO2 + Al2O3) content and the binary basicity (CaO/SiO2). The following subsections
discuss the impacts of these parameters on blast furnace performance.

2.2.1 Iron content

The typical iron (Fe) content of sinter is around 55-58%, while BF pellets are normally
62-66% Fe. BF pellets have a higher Fe content as they are manufactured from low-
grade ores that are finely ground prior to undergoing mineral beneficiation
treatments. During beneficiation, gangue materials are removed through a variety of
mineral processing methods, such as gravimetric separation, magnetic separation
and froth flotation. Iron is concentrated to a high degree as these mineral processing
techniques efficiently eliminate gangue materials. By using clay binders, the
pelletizing process can operate at lower basicity compared to the sintering process,
requiring much lower flux additions as a result. Flux additions have a net diluting
effect on the Fe content, so it follows that the Fe content of pellets is less diluted than
that of sinter.
The higher Fe content of pellets increases blast furnace productivity as more iron
units are charged to the blast furnace per unit ton of burden material. Shipping costs
are reduced as more iron units and less undesirable gangue are shipped to the final
blast furnace user.
2.2.2 Total acid gangue content
The total acid gangue content, defined as SiO2 + Al2O3, is significantly lower in
pellets compared to sinter as pellets are manufactured from low-grade ores that
underwent a significant degree of beneficiation to increase their Fe content as
described in the previous sub-sections.
The main advantage of lower gangue pellets to the blast furnace operation is a lower
slag rate. As blast furnace slag is mainly composed of the gangue materials present
in the ferrous burden, the ash content of coke, and the added fluxes it follows that
utilizing a lower acid gangue material will produce less slag per ton of burden or hot
metal. A lower slag rates directly translate into lower coke rates, as less thermal
energy is required to form and melt the slag. In addition to lower coke rates, another
direct advantage of a lower slag rate is that a smaller volume of by-product slag must
be subsequently sold or disposed.

2.2.3 Binary Basicity

The third difference in the chemistries of BF pellets and sinter is shown by the binary
basicity (B2) defined as the ratio of CaO/SiO2. While for BF pellets the B2 ratio is
typically around 0.8-1.1, for sinter this ratio is commonly greater than 1.7. Such a
high basicity is required to improve sinter properties and achieve enough strength to
withstand materials handling operations and for good performance within the blast
furnace itself. Figure 3 below shows the dependence between sinter strength,
defined as fraction > 10mm after tumbler test, and sinter basicity.
70
Sinter size >10mm, %

60

50
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sinter basicity
Figure 3. Relationship between sinter strength and sinter basicity.(1)

The higher basicity requirements of sinter compared to BF pellets negatively affects

the operating costs of hot metal production in two ways. First, it requires a higher
consumption of flux (limestone and/or dolomite) to achieve the target basicity.
Secondly, it increases the slag rate, as the additional fluxes generate a higher slag
volume.

3 METHODOLOGIES AND DISCUSSION

For a simple comparison between sinter and pellet use in the blast furnace, six
specific scenarios where considered. In each case, the burden ratios of pellet/sinter,
as well as fuel injection type were varied. Mass and energy balances were then
performed for each of the six scenarios to obtain Key Performance Indices (KPIs)
that would enable the comparison of blast furnace performance for each case.
Table 2 summarizes the cases studied:
Table 2. Fixed Blast Furnace parameters for the different scenarios
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Parameter
1 1a 2 3 3a 4
Sinter in the
65% 65% - 65% 65% -
burden
Pellets in the
35% 35% 100% 35% 35% 100%
burden
Fuel PCI NG
PCI PCI NG NG
injection

The chemical properties of the raw materials used in the six calculated scenarios are
shown in Tables 3 and 4. Three different pellet types, consistent with grades widely
available in the market were selected to reflect various BF operating scenarios:
 Pellet 1 – Low silica fluxed pellets, used for Scenarios 1 and 3;
 Pellet 2 – Acid pellets, used for Scenarios 1a and 3a;
 Pellet 3 – Super fluxed pellets, used for scenarios 2 and 4.
Table 3. Iron bearing raw material properties
Material FeTotal (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) CaO (%) MgO (%) CaO/SiO2
Sinter 57.7 5.0 1.5 9.0 1.1 1.8
Pellet 1 66.2 2.2 0.6 1.8 0.2 0.8
Pellet 2 64.8 5.0 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.2
Pellet 3 63.8 3.0 0.6 3.6 1.1 1.2

Table 4. Carbon bearing raw material properties

Material Ash (%) Volatile Matter (%) Carbon (%) Energy Content (MJ/kg)
Coke 13.0 0.5 86.5 30
PCI Coal 13.0 22.5 64.5 32
Natural Gas - - 73.7 40

The blast furnace charge rates of the ferrous burden, fluxes and fuels used for each
of the six scenarios are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5. BF burden composition
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Description Units
1 1a 2 3 3a 4
Sinter kg/THM 1,020 1,029 - 1,021 1,029 -
Pellets kg/THM 549 554 1,494 550 554 1,494
Limestone kg/THM - 17 30 - 4 16
Quartz kg/THM 11 - - 17 - -

Table 6. Fuel rate comparison

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Description Units
1 1a 2 3 3a 4
Coke rate kg/THM 328 331 310 362 366 345
PCI rate kg/THM 180 180 180 - - -
NG rate kg/THM - - - 100 100 100
Adjusted
kg/THM 490 493 472 482 486 465
fuel rate*
* Adjusted fuel rate (kg/THM) = Coke rate + (0.9 x PCI rate) + (1.2 x NG rate)
As described above, the higher acid gangue content of sinter with its accompanying
higher flux requirement, results in a larger volume of slag generated for all cases
using sinter. Consequently, the coke rate increases as additional energy is required
to melt the increased slag volume. The results of the calculations are shown in
Table 7.

Table 7. Comparison of Key Performance Indices (KPIs)

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
KPI Units
1 1a 2 3 3a 4
Slag rate kg/THM 259 273 188 254 253 168
Coke rate kg/THM 328 331 310 362 366 345
t Fe
Burden to
charged/t
hot metal 0.61 0.61 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.66
burden
yield
charged

Hatch’s calculations confirm higher slag rates in Scenarios 1, 1a, 3 and 3a as a result
of sinter use in the burden. As expected, coke rate and overall fuel rate are also
higher for those scenarios compared to Scenarios 2 and 4. The higher fuel rate in the
sinter scenarios also results in increased blast furnace carbon emissions, as shown
in Section 5.2.
The above analysis indicates that significant benefits in blast furnace operation can
be achieved by using pellets instead of sinter as the main BF burden constituent.
Specifically, the use of pellets results in a higher production of hot metal per ton of
burden charged, lower slag rate, lower coke rate and lower overall fuel consumption.
The lower fuel consumption benefits, which can bring important operational savings
to the steel producer, are illustrated in Figure 4.
There are also important environmental benefits of using pellets in the BF, which will
be discussed in the next section.

500

400
Fuel (kg/THM)

300

200

100

0
Scenario 1 Scenario 1a Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 3a Scenario 4
Coke Rate PCI Rate NG Rate Adjusted Fuel Rate*
*Adjusted fuel rate (kg/THM) = Coke rate + 0.9xPCI rate + 1.2xNG rate
Figure 4. Comparison of fuel consumption between scenarios.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section compares the environmental impact of blast furnace operations using
pellets and sinter as the main burden constituents. The environmental impact
comparison focuses on four items; atmospheric emissions at the agglomeration
processes, blast furnace equivalent carbon emissions, transportation/materials
handling emissions and ability to recycle solid wastes.

4.1 Agglomeration Process Atmospheric Emissions

Table 8 below compares the typical emissions for the two agglomeration processes
relevant to this paper; sintering and pelletizing. The figures are for existing sintering
and pelletizing plants in the European Union some of which are considered as world
benchmarks.

Table 8. Averaged maximum and minimum air emissions of sintering and pelletizing plants in the EU(3)
Sintering Pelletizing
Air Emissions Unit
Process Process
Waste gas flow Nm3/t 1,500 - 2,500 1,940 - 2,400
Dust g/t 41 - 559 14 - 150
SOx g/t 220 - 973 11 - 213
NOx g/t 302 - 1031 150 - 550
CO g/t 8,783 - 37,000 <10 - 410
CO2 kg/t 162 - 368 17 - 193
VOC g/t 37 - 673 5 - 40
PAH mg/t 0.2 - 592 0.7 - 1.1

A quick inspection of Table 8 reveals that the environmental performance of the

pelletizing process is significantly better than the sintering process, as the typical
emissions of all the pollutants shown in Table 8 are lower. When the entire
production chain starting at the agglomeration process is considered, there is a clear
environmental benefit of using pellets instead of sinter as the main blast furnace
burden constituent.
Newly constructed sintering plants include modern pollution control equipment
designed to achieve lower emissions. Hatch currently does not have data of the most
modern operations, but expects a superior performance compared to those European
sinter plants reported in Table 8. Sinter producers and pollution control equipment
manufacturers must continue to push the limits of innovation in order to comply with
ever tightening environmental legislation worldwide.

4.2 Blast Furnace Carbon Emissions

For the blast furnace, carbon is principally introduced to the process via coke, PCI
and NG injection and any raw carbonate containing fluxes added to the furnace. The
hot metal tapped out of the furnace typically contains 4.5% carbon, with the balance
of carbon leaving the furnace in the top gas as a combination of CO and CO2.
Figures 5 and 6 show a comparison of the BF carbon footprint for the six scenarios
studied in this paper.
 Figure 5. Comparison of BF carbon flows for the six scenarios.
 
1,500

1,450
1,424
1,413
Carbon dioxide emissions (kg CO2/THM)

1,400
1,356
1,350

1,300 1,292
1,281

1,250
1,224

1,200

1,150

1,100

1,050

1,000
Scenario 1 Scenario 1a Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 3a Scenario 4
Figure 6. Comparison of BF carbon emissions for the six scenarios.

Figures 5 and 6 above illustrate that the blast furnace carbon emissions are higher in
the cases where sinter is used as the main blast furnace burden constituent
(Scenarios 1, 1a, 3 and 3a) with respect to those where 100% pellets are used
(Scenarios 2 and 4). This is directly related to the higher coke rate resulting from the
sinter operations as described in Section 3. Higher coke consumption directly
translates into higher carbon emissions.
The above figures also illustrate that carbon emissions are higher when operating
with PCI injection (Scenarios 1, 1a and 2) as opposed to natural gas injection
(Scenarios 3, 3a and 4). This is due to the lower carbon content per unit output
energy of natural gas compared to injected coal.
The above analysis demonstrates that significant reductions in carbon emissions
produced by the blast furnace can be achieved when using pellets as the main
ferrous burden constituent.

4.3 Transportation and Materials Handling Emissions

The calculations in Section 3 demonstrated that when using pellets instead of sinter,
lower quantities of iron-bearing and carbon-bearing materials are charged to the blast
furnace. It follows that using pellets results in freight savings and reduction in carbon
emissions as less raw materials require transportation to the blast furnace site. In
addition, materials handling operations at the blast furnace site are reduced, resulting
in fewer particulate emissions from materials handling activities. Lower slag rates
resulting from pellet use also contribute to the overall reduction in materials handling
activities and consequently, particulate and carbon emissions.

4.4 Internal Solid Wastes Recycling

An often cited advantage of using sinter instead of pellets is that having a sintering
plant within the integrated steelworks allows for the internal recycling of various solid
wastes, such as blast furnace dust, BOF dust and mill scale among others. The
pelletizing process is also capable of recycling these solid wastes although it is more
challenging than for the sintering process as the recycled materials must be finely
ground to the same particle size required for balling the iron ore concentrate. In North
America, where many steel plants use 100% pellets and do not have a sinter plant,
solid wastes are briquetted and added to the blast furnace and steelmaking furnaces
to consume these waste materials.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Large quantities of fine iron ore concentrate will enter the seaborne market over the
next decade as a result of declining high-quality sinter fines. These concentrates
must be pelletized to allow their usage in blast furnace and direct reduction
processes. Thus, blast furnace operators that consume seaborne iron ore will
gradually increase the use of pellets in the blast furnace burden as the pellet feed
supply grows.
Hatch compared the use of sinter and pellets in the blast furnace and demonstrated
that using pellets instead of sinter can result in significant technical and
environmental benefits. These benefits include lower coke rate, lower slag rate, lower
CO2 emissions at the blast furnace, lower emissions at the agglomeration process
and an overall lower fuel requirement to produce hot metal.
Blast furnace operators consuming iron ore from the seaborne market are thus
encouraged to consider increasing the use of pellets to improve performance, reduce
atmospheric emissions and better adapt to rapidly changing market conditions.
Acknowledgement

The authors are pleased to acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Mike Walsh for the
iron ore market information. We also acknowledge Mr. Yakov Gordon, Ms. Janice
Bolen, Ms. Marka Okrutny and other Hatch employees for their valuable input.

REFERENCES

1 Hatch Ltd. and Hatch Consulting in-house reference data.

2 FRUEHAN, R.J. The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel. Pittsburgh: The AISE Steel
Foundation. 11th Edition. 1999.
3 EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Best Available
Technologies (BAT), Reference Document for the Production of Iron & Steel. UE, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (E.I.A.). Available online at

www.eia.gov
2 MOURÃO, J.M.; HUERTA, M.; MEDEIROS, U.; CAMERON, I.; O’LEARY, K.; HOWEY,
C. Guidelines for Selecting Pellet Plant Technology. In. 6TH INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF THE SCIENCE OF IRONMAKING, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Anais… Rio de Janeiro: ABM, oct. 2012.
3 BUSSER, J. Blast Furnace Energy Balance and Recovery. In. 22nd Blast Furnace
Ironmaking Course. Hamilton: McMaster University, may 2012.